Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported;
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session providing among other things for the exception from the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, of service on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, as a school teacher in the service of the Birmingham Board of Guardians at Monyhull Colony, Moseley, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such sums as may be necessary to defray the expenses of the Board of Education in respect of such superannuation allowances, gratuities, and balances of contributions as may become payable under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, by reason of the exception aforesaid.

Resolution agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSESSORS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour if she can make a statement with regard to the work of the local boards of assessors under the Unemployment Insurance Acts since they were set up?

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases the procedure of referring questions regarding the fulfilment of the genuinely seeking work condition to local boards of assessors has been adopted, and with what results; and what proportion cases so referred bear to the total number of cases during the same period where benefit has been refused for this reason?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): As the reply contains a table of figures I will, with the permission of the hon. Members, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The procedure for referring certain questions arising on claims for unemployment benefit to local boards of assessors came into force on 9th September last. In the four weeks from 9th September to 7th October, boards of assessors dealt with 26,360 cases. The following is an analysis of the board's recommendations:

(1) Genuinely seeking work condition.

Number of reports received from boards of assessors
16,528


Reports favourable to claimant
8,769


Reports unfavourable to claimant
7,637


Assessors disagreed
122

(2) Transitional conditions (b) and (c).

Number of reports received from boards of assessors
9,832


Reports favourable to claimant
6,096


Reports unfavourable to claimant
3,664


Assessors disagreed
72

Mr. ALFRED SMITH: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour how many assessors constitute the Board; and whether it is competent for a single assessor to give a decision?

Miss BONDFIELD: A Board of Assessors consists of two persons representing employers and insured contributors respectively. A case may be dealt with in the absence of one of the members if the claimant consents.

FOREIGN MUSICIANS.

Mr. TOOLE: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that since the 1st May last eight foreign bands have been allowed to enter this country to take up employment; and whether she is willing to consider placing an embargo upon such bands until such time as unemployment is less prevalent amongst British musicians?

Miss BONDFIELD: As stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) last week, I
am satisfied that the entry of foreign musicians is being limited to the fullest extent which is justifiable. I may mention that the permits for the bands to which my hon. Friend refers were limited to periods of two months in four cases, three months in three cases and four months in the remaining case.

Mr. TOOLE: Would the right hon. Lady at her convenience be willing to meet a deputation from the Musicians' Union?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have frequently met deputations from the Musicians' Union on this subject.

Mr. TOOLE: I did not ask whether she had met deputations of the Musicians' Union, but whether she would meet an other deputation from the union?

Miss BONDFIELD: Perhaps I might explain to the hon. Member that the Musicians' Union is in constant communication with my Department.

UMPIRES' DECISIONS.

Mr. WHITE: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been drawn to the delay in the rendering of decisions by the Umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; and if she will take steps to expedite the work of this Department?

Miss BONDFIELD: An additional deputy umpire has been appointed and has already taken up duty.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. WHITE: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour if new regulations have been made for dealing with the cases of insured persons whose unemployment benefit has been disallowed pending inquiry into their entitlement to contributory pensions?

Miss BONDFIELD: Arrangements have been made between my Department and the Ministry of Health for dealing with cases where a claimant is clearly entitled either to unemployment benefit or an old age pension, according to whether he is under or over 65, but where his precise age is in doubt. Pending settlement of the question a provisional payment of 10s. a week is made by the Exchange.

Mr. LAWTHER: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women who have been designated not genuinely
seeking work registered at the Lanchester, Stanhope, and Middleton-in-Teesdale Exchanges for the months of May and October, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: Sixteen applications for unemployment benefit at these Exchanges were disallowed by insurance officers during the four weeks ended 13th May, 1929, and 10 during the five weeks ended 14th October, on the ground that the applicants were not genuinely seeking work, while in the latter period the Court of Referees recommended six cases for disallowance on the same ground on review after payment of 78 days' benefit.

DOCK AND HARBOUR SCHEMES.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: 9 and 21.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether the application to her Department of the Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners in respect of dock improvement and extension schemes falls to be considered for grant on a non-revenue producing basis;
(2) how many applications have been received in her Department from dock and harbour authorities in respect of accelerated schemes of extension; how many authorities have accepted the terms offered by her Department; and what is the total amount involved in the schemes in which the terms have been accepted?

Miss BONDFIELD: Formal application has been made by three authorities and inquiries, including one from the Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners, have been received from a number of others. In all these cases negotiations are still proceeding. The financial terms offered to such authorities, which were those applying to revenue-producing schemes, have been materially improved, as was announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy last Monday, and are in my opinion such as should enable the negotiations to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion in all cases where works of real magnitude are proposed, and should also bring in applications from other authorities.

Sir F. THOMSON: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether she realises that these terms are not satisfactory to a large number of undertakings, and whether she realises that these bodies are not carried on solely for profit?

Miss BONDFIELD: I did not use the word "profit"; I used the words "revenue producing schemes."

Sir F. THOMSON: May I point out that the word "profit" is used in the Statute under which the right hon. Lady is acting.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Will the right hon. Lady give consideration to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as to the percentage increase for revenue producing schemes, seeing that for short-term schemes this is little better than the old terms.

Miss BONDFIELD: Under the previous terms, half the interest on the loan was allowed for a maximum period of 15 years. Under the new terms, 100 per cent. interest on the loan is allowed for the period of construction and half interest thereafter for a maximum period of 15 years. I do not think that can be regarded as small.

Mr. BROWN: Will the Minister of Labour follow my question? As to the schemes which are put up for a period of 15 months—I agree that in the cases where it is five or six years it is a large improvement—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

INDEX AND CHARTS (LIBRARY, HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Sir A. POWNALL: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour if she has been able to make arrangements for a copy of the local unemployment index to be avail able to Members in the Library; and whether she will arrange for charts with regard to the unemployment figures being exhibited in the Tea Room, as was done by her predecessor?

Miss BONDFIELD: Arrangements have been made for a copy of the local unemployment index to be available for reference by hon. Members in the Library. I am having certain charts showing the course of unemployment prepared, and will consider which of them would be most suitable for the purpose referred to by the hon. Member.

STATISTICS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the numbers on the unemployment register between 3rd June and 28th October of this year, and in what industries have in creases been shown?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain on 28th October was 134,275 more than on 3rd June. Figures in respect of particular industries are not yet available for a later date than 23rd September, 1929. Between 24th June and that date the increase in unemployment was mainly due to seasonal causes and occurred chiefly in the building industry, public works contracting, the clothing and distributive trades and hotel and boarding house service. There was, however, some in crease also in general engineering, ship building, ship repairing, and textile bleaching, dyeing and finishing.

CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men registered as engaged in the civil engineering industry, and also the number unemployed in the same industry during the last four months?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is long and contains a number of figures, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The industry groups connected with civil engineering, for which statistics are available, are constructional engineering and public works contracting. At the end of June, 1929, the number of insured men, aged 18 to 64, classified as belonging to constructional engineering in Great Britain was 25,230, while the corresponding figure for public works contracting was 154,420. The numbers of such persons recorded as unemployed for each of the last four months were:

Constructional Engineering:—22nd July, 2,714; 26th August, 2,929; 23rd September, 2,812; 21st October, 3,053.

Public Works Contracting:—22nd July, 29,909; 26th August, 31,161; 23rd September, 32,362; 21st October, 34,725.

SCHEMES, DUNDEE.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware of an application by the Dundee Town Council to the Unemployment Grants Committee for a grant of £16,000 to facilitate the esplanade extension there; and,
if so, whether or not this course is to be adopted in the interests of the unemployed?

Miss BONDFIELD: The application to which my hon. Friend refers is under consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee and the Government Department concerned, and it is hoped that a decision may be reached at an early date.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there has already been agreement in regard to these matters, and will there now be acceleration so that the work may be proceeded with?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that the several road schemes submitted by the Dundee Corporation have been returned approved to London by her engineering department at Edinburgh; and, if so, will any or all of the schemes be sanctioned, with requisite grants, at an early date?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Dundee Town Council have made application to the Unemployment Grants Committee for assistance in respect of nine road schemes, of which two have so far been approved for grant. It is hoped that an early decision may be reached on the remainder.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Can the right hon. Lady say if more than two schemes have not already been brought up, as far as the Edinburgh recommendations are concerned, and is she aware that there is anxiety now to get some work started on those schemes?

SCOTLAND.

Sir PATRICK FORD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of the problem of the relief of unemployment in Scotland as distinct from Wales and England?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As was indicated in the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate for the office of the Lord Privy Seal, no distinction is being made between Scot land and any other part of Great Britain in dealing with this problem. I may also remind the hon. Member that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is closely associated with the Lord Privy Seal in this matter.

Sir P. FORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he remembers the distinction between Scotland and Wales, that, while Wales is a principality, Scot land is a kingdom equal with England?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that probably that was part of the consideration that was in our minds when we associated the Under-Secretary of State with the Lord Privy Seal.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion that the Report stage of this Estimate might be used for a Debate on Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no control over that; it is a matter for hon. Members themselves.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the recent Debate on unemployment, only one or two Scottish Members had an opportunity of emphasising the position in Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the very appointment of the Under-Secretary is the cause of our anxiety to discover what work he has been doing in connection with Scotland?

FOREIGN BOXERS.

Mr. BECKETT: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour how many foreign boxers have been admitted into this country since 1st June, 1929; whether the British Boxing Board of Control were consulted in each case or in any case; whether they advised against the admission of any individual; and, if so, how many and who were they?

Miss BONDFIELD: Since the 1st June, 1929, permits under the Aliens Order have been issued in respect of 29 boxers. Under an arrangement made last June, the British Boxing Board of Control are consulted in every case in which application for such a permit is made. The abject of the arrangement is to prevent the entry into this country of foreign boxers of no repute who, if admitted, would accept minor boxing engagements which could equally well be undertaken by British boxers, and I understand that, generally speaking, the arrangement is achieving its object. Permits have not been issued
against the advice of the Board in any case which could be regarded as coming within the objects of the arrangement.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Member tell me whether she has satisfied herself that the British Boxing Board of Control has no other interest in this matter except a desire to safeguard this country against disreputable foreigners?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is so.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Lady tell me what in her opinion are "boxers of no repute"?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Member whether she is quite satisfied that no obstacle is being placed in the way of respectable men coming here in the course of international sport in which Britishers take part in foreign countries?

Mr. BECKETT: Before the Minister of Labour replies, may I ask whether she is aware that on a recent visit of a famous American boxer, a champion of the world, this Boxing Board of Control announced that they would not give a permit, as they have a bias against him?

Miss BONDFIELD: In that case, a permit was given.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Lady quite satisfied that her Department is not being used for the protection of British boxers?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that we have had a series of supplementary questions at the beginning of questions?

Mr. BECKETT: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any foreign boxers admitted into this country on the advice of the British Boxing Board of Control are still here; and, if so, how many and what are their names?

Miss BONDFIELD: According to the information available in my Department, no foreign boxer admitted on or before 31st October under a permit issued under the Aliens Order is now in the country.

SILK AND ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRIES.

Mr. REMER: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour how many people were employed in the rayon and silk industries on 1st October, 1925, and how many on 1st October, 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: The estimated number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the silk and artificial silk industries in Great Britain was 73,480 at the end of June, 1929, as compared with 45,300 at the end of June, 1925. Corresponding figures for 1st October in each of these years are not available. The number of such persons recorded as unemployed was 6,435 at 23rd September, 1929, as compared with 3,285 at 21st September, 1925.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Lady consider the use of the word "rayon" instead of "artificial silk"?

Miss BONDFIELD: I certainly will consider that point.

Mr. KELLY: 40.
asked the Home Secretary what action has been taken to improve the health conditions in the spinning rooms of artificial silk factories, particularly in the matter of eye injury and lung trouble; and has any prosecution taken place against firms in this industry during the last six months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The matter has continued to receive the close attention of the inspectorate and the further conference which I mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 25th July last was held last month. It was agreed that the remedy for the special trouble arising in the spinning rooms is to secure efficient ventilation, and the inspectors and occupiers are concentrating on this. In many cases improvements have been effected with beneficial results. The conditions in all these works will continue to receive close supervision.
One prosecution has taken place during the last six months, the offences being failure to ventilate the churns and failure to notify cases of poisoning by carbon bisulphide. Substantial penalties were imposed.

Mr. KELLY: Will any report with regard to that conference be presented to the House?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not certain that it will be presented to the House, but I will consider the point.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour what measures the Government propose to take to counteract the effect which will be produced by the raising of the school-leaving age in accentuating the fluctuations in the number of juveniles in or available for employment during the next decade?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is in my opinion necessary to consider the whole question of the prospective supply of and demand for juvenile labour in different parts of the country, and I have decided to ask the two national Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment to consider this question and to advise as to any measures which should be taken for the purpose of adjusting the relations between the supply and the demand.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Will the right hon. Lady also consult the local unemployment committees?

Miss BONDFIELD: That comes into the machinery.

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour what number and percentage of the workers in this country are employed on conditions as to hours hot less favourable than those contemplated in the Washington Convention of 1919; whether any and, if so, what existing agreements between employers and employed in this country providing for not more than a 48-hour week would be rendered illegal by unconditional ratification of the Convention?

Miss BONDFIELD: The information available as regard the first part of the question is contained in the Nineteenth Abstract of Labour Statistics and the last Report on Standard Time Rates and Hours of Labour. Broadly speaking, the recognised working week, exclusive of
overtime, in the industries of this country does not exceed 48 hours, As regards the second part, the information required could only be given after a detailed examination of the agreements, in association with the parties.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the information asked for in the second part of the question is in the possession of the Department which the right hon. Lady represents; and that the agreement of the National Union of Railwaymen is one of the agreements which would be illegal if the Washington Hours Convention were unconditionally ratified?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ONE-WAY TRAFFIC, LONDON (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the large number of serious and other accidents that have taken place at Hyde Park Corner and Trafalgar Square, owing to the introduction of the roundabout or one-way system of traffic, from its inception to the 30th June, 1929, he will consider having further traffic policemen placed at these points?

Mr. CLYNES: The question has been considered but I am advised that the accidents which occur are not such as to suggest as a remedy the provision of more police. Constables are already employed at all the principal crossings and notices have been set up to indicate to pedestrians the points at which it is safest to cross the road: but many pedestrians persist in crossing elsewhere with out taking proper care. A large pro portion of the accidents caused in this way or by careless driving are not preventable by any action the police could take and can be prevented only by the exercise of greater care on the part of both pedestrians and drivers.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that, in the 12 months since the inception of the roundabout system, there have been nearly twice as many accidents as there were in the previous 12 months; and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there ought to be further police protection at these points?

Mr. CLYNES: The first point is not included in the question, and I should be glad to have notice of it. On the other point, I think my answer is a full one.

Mr. DAY: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman himself gave me these figures some time ago?

Mr. CLYNES: I merely said that the point is not included in the original question.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that taxicab drivers refuse to go into Hyde Park owing to the fear of accidents through inadequate lighting.

Mr. CLYNES: I will look into that point.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of making representations to the local authorities for the construction of subways at Hyde Park Corner?

DANGEROUS DRIVING.

Mr. BECKETT: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the increasing danger of the roads due to dangerous driving; and whether he has considered, or will consider, the desirability of instituting a road patrol system to check driving of this character?

Mr. CLYNES: The Royal Commission on Transport in their first Report drew attention to the increase in road accidents. The duty of detecting offences in relation to dangerous driving, which is of course one of the contributory causes of the increase, rests on chief officers of police; motor road patrols are in fact used in some police districts for detecting motoring offences, though not, I think, to the extent they might be, and while chief officers of police must be left with a wide discretion to use the measures which they consider best adapted to their purpose, I am giving the whole question my further consideration.

Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to chief officers of police that it is very much more important that their constables should watch dangerous parts of the road, than that they should waste their time on
wide straight roads with no turnings, trying to catch people who are travelling at 21 miles an hour?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a point of argument and does not arise out of the question.

Mr. TOOLE: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that there is such a thing as pedestrians walking to the danger of the public?

TRAFFIC CONTROL.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 32.
asked the Home Secretary the number of police who could be released from traffic duty if mechanical control of traffic at cross roads were generally to be adopted throughout the Metropolitan police area?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. I regret it is impossible to give any figure on which reliance could be placed.

Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the success of this system in the provinces?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

METROPOLITAN FORCE.

Mr. DAY: 27.
asked the Home Secretary when the last review of police requirements in the Metropolitan Police District was considered; and whether he is at present considering augmenting the Metropolitan Police Force for the purpose of adjusting it to meet the existing needs?

Mr. CLYNES: A detailed review of the requirements was conducted in 1926–27. Some increase was made then and I have under consideration at the present time the question of further augmenting the force to provide for the needs of recently developed districts.

Mr. DAY: Are there any regular periods?

Mr. CLYNES: I could not say without notice.

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government propose to take any action to further increase the pensions of pre-War pensioners of the police so as to bring them into line with the pension scale now in force?

Mr. CLYNES: As has been previously stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government cannot see their way to grant to pre-War pensioners benefits beyond those granted by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924. I regret it is not possible to single out pre-War police pensioners for special treatment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the widows of those police officers who got no pension in consequence of the change on the 31st August, 1918, and is he aware that those widows do not get a penny piece, notwithstanding the fact that their husbands had perhaps served for 18 or 20 years?

Mr. CLYNES: If that is a matter of general grievance, I shall be glad to have information from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

ANILINE FACTORY WORKERS (CANCER).

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet been able to take any, and, if so, what steps to facilitate the investigation at present being carried out by the London Cancer Hospital into the incidence of the disease of cancer of the bladder among workers in aniline factories?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir. I am arranging for the co-operation of the Medical Inspectorate of the Factory Department in the investigation of the industrial history of cases of this disease; and I am also consulting the Registrar-General on the question of facilitating the supply of the statistical information required.

TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.

Mr. KELLY: 30.
asked the Home Secretary the number of orders approved for the working of the two-shift system under the Employment of Women, Young Per sons, and Children Act, 1920, since March last?

Mr. CLYNES: The number of two shift Orders granted since the 31st March last is 65.

Mr. KELLY: Were the workpeople consulted, and did they agree to these Orders being made?

Mr. CLYNES: In no instance do I make such an Order without having satisfied myself of the consent of the work people.

Mr. KELLY: Is it the intention of the Government to end this particular Act of Parliament this year?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a matter for later consideration.

Captain WATERHOUSE: How many cases were not approved in the same period?

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Mr. KNIGHT: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received, in accordance with the Statutes, the Annual Report of the Council of Judges on the administration of justice and its improvement, as suggested by experience; if so, when this Report was last received; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: No such report has reached me since I became Home Secretary and I understand that the last re port received in the Home Office was made in 1920. I gather from such inquiries as I have been able to make that experience has shown that a Council of the Judges is not an appropriate or convenient body for the purpose in view and that the object of the Statute has in large measure been attained in another way by the development of the functions of the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court.

Mr. KNIGHT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will represent to the Lord Chief Justice the propriety of setting an example of compliance with the law by taking the natural step of obeying the directions of the Statutes.

Mr. CLYNES: I should be sorry to think that the Lord Chief Justice did not pay due regard to the authority of the Statutes, but the point is one on which I can consult the Lord Chancellor.

MURDERS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 33.
asked the Home Secretary how many cases of murder came to the knowledge of the police authorities between 1st January, 1929 and 1st November, 1929; in how many of these cases arrests have been made; and how many convictions have been recorded.

Mr. CLYNES: This information is not in my possession. In order to obtain it I should have to ask for a return from every police force in the country and I do not think that I should be justified in that course which would involve a certain expenditure of time and money and would not give as complete results as the returns which are made in the ordinary course after the completion of each year.

EMIGRATION (DORIS PEARCE).

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Doris Pearce, aged 10, a girl removed from the custody of unsuitable parents and now in charge of the Middlemore Homes, Birmingham, whom it is proposed to send against her will to Australia, in spite of the fact that her brother is willing to provide a home for her; and whether he will cause steps to be at once taken to prevent the deportation of this child?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, I have already made very careful inquiry into the facts of the case. I cannot go fully into the circumstances here but the broad facts are that this girl who is nearly 14 years of age was living under most undesirable conditions, and after the Probation Officer had gone into the matter at the request of the National Society for the Prevention of cruelty to Children she was admitted as a voluntary inmate to the Middlemore Homes with a view to emigration. This arrangement was made with the full con sent and approval of her mother, who is her sole legal guardian and who objects, on grounds which seem to me entitled to respect, to her going to live with her brother as has been suggested. The question of emigration has been postponed for the time being, and if my hon. Friend who has interested himself in the matter can make any alternative suggestion for the girl's welfare, I will under take to see that the whole position is
further considered, though I have of course no power to override the wishes of the mother as the girl's legal guardian.

Mr. BROWN: May I assume that while representations are being made to the Minister, the suspension of the emigration of this girl will be continued?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes.

PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL.

Mr. LANG: 35.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that for the three years 1925, 1926 and 1927, inclusive, no less than 18,465 persons who were subsequently acquitted were held in custody awaiting trial; and will he inquire into the question of increased facilities for bail as well as the conditions of treatment of persons detained on remand?

Mr. CLYNES: The numbers quoted, averaging about 6,000 annually, include persons remanded at police courts as well as persons committed for trial. The annual figure of about 6,000 is not made up of persons who were all acquitted; it includes all who were not returned to prison on the same charge with a sentence of five days or more, that is to say, it includes great numbers who were adjudged guilty and dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, or fined, or sentenced to four days' detention or less. I am glad to say that the number of persons committed to prison or trial in 1927 was only about 40 per cent. of what it was in 1905, and that the proportion bailed nearly doubled. Figures for remands on bail are not available. The general question of the treatment of unconvicted prisoners is both important and difficult. I propose to give it attention.

Mr. KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to represent to justices that under a recent Statute they are required to provide bail in all reason able cases?

Mr. LANG: Has my right hon. Friend satisfied himself that there is no hardship entailed upon poor persons in the matter of bail—persons who cannot afford solicitors to appear for them—and has he considered the further question that people who can afford it can, when committed to prison, go in private taxicabs, while other people go in prison vans?

Mr. CLYNES: I doubt whether we can ever obtain complete equality in these matters, because of differences in wealth and position. Neither of the two points in the supplementary question is included in the original question, and I should like to have notice of them.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to hurry up trials, and is he aware that innocent people have been kept under penal conditions for weeks and months?

DEVIZES MENTAL HOSPITAL (PATIENT'S ESCAPE).

Mr. LANG: 36.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the escape from Devizes Mental Hospital of a patient named Littleton Watson; is he aware that this patient was transferred to Devizes from Broad moor Criminal Lunatic Asylum a year ago; and will he state the conditions under which such transfers are made?

Mr. CLYNES: I have seen a newspaper report. The escape of a patient who is not a criminal lunatic would not be reported officially to me. The patient in question, while under sentences for stealing and false pretences, was certified insane and removed to Broadmoor, as a criminal lunatic. When his sentences expired in October, 1928, he ceased to be a criminal lunatic; but as he was still insane, he was re-certified under the ordinary lunacy law and received into the Devizes Mental Hospital. This is the course prescribed by Statute.

Mr. LANG: With regard to the second part of the question, is it a fact that prisoners who are committed to Broadmoor on murder charges and found insane are transferred to county mental hospitals?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a new point, and I shall be glad to consult my hon. Friend on it.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to advise the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the question of capital punishment in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 30th October last?

Mr. CLYNES: Arrangements are being made through the usual channels, and the customary notice will be given at an early date.

VIVISECTION.

Mr. FREEMAN: 39.
asked the Home Secretary if he will give instructions that a record be kept of the kind of animals used for each experiment in vivisection, the total period during which each animal was experimented upon, and the actual time during which it suffered any kind of pain; and that this information be published in future Reports?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. I do not think that the information suggested, even if it were obtainable, would serve any useful purpose. So far as the question of pain is concerned, I would remind my hon. Friend that stringent conditions are imposed in all cases in which the experiment is performed without anaesthesia or the animal is allowed to come out of the anaesthesia.

Mr. FREEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider what steps can be taken to provide the information indicated by the question?

Mr. CLYNES: If my hon. Friend will consult me on any matter of detail, I shall be glad to go into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

Mr. GRUNDY: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has been requested by the representatives of the non-provided elementary schools to arrange a conference with a view to an amicable arrangement of their existing difficulties; and, if he is prepared to call such a conference and if he has not had such a request, is he prepared to take the responsibility and arrange such conference?

Viscount CRANBORNE: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education what action the Government propose to take in cases where the resources of the non-provided schools are not adequate to provide the additional accommodation involved by the Government decision to raise the school age to 15?

Mr. BEAUMONT: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education, in view of Circular 1,404 and the admitted necessity for improved and increased buildings owing to the raising of the school age, whether he is going to take any steps to assist such building in voluntary schools; if so, what is the nature of these steps; and, if not, is he prepared to take over these schools at the expense of the taxpayer rather than the ratepayer?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I dealt with the question of assistance to non-provided schools in the answer which I gave on Thursday last. I can only add to that answer that, as the House is aware, the local education authorities have to arrange for, or in the last resort to provide, accommodation for all the children resident in their area for whose education sufficient and suit able provision is not otherwise made.

Mr. GRUNDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that His Eminence Cardinal Bourne said that the Government know full well that the Catholics are ready and willing to take part in any negotiations when given an opportunity, and what steps does he propose to take to give them such an opportunity?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have had no communication whatever from His Eminence.

Mr. GRUNDY: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. HANNON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the situation of these non-provided schools at present is very unsatisfactory, and that those responsible for the erection and maintenance of these schools are most anxious to have a consultation with the right hon. Gentleman; and will he afford them a suitable occasion, convenient to himself, to allow them to present their views to him?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I can only repeat that I have had no communication what ever from His Eminence.

Mr. HANNON: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman being so unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this question on a suitable occasion.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice has just been given that this matter is going to be raised on a Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. BEAUMONT: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman said he would answer Question 50 with the other questions, but the last part of my question has not been answered at all.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is included in my reply.

REORGANISATION SCHEMES.

Dr. HASTINGS: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education if local education authorities are in the habit of conferring with teachers and parents when devising schemes of reorganisation designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Hadow Report and to prepare for the raising of the school-leaving age?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think local education authorities generally realise the importance of conferring with teachers and parents about such schemes. The Board, in Pamphlet No. 60, entitled "The New Prospect in Education," have emphasised that no scheme is likely to be successful unless the co-operation of teachers and parents is secured, and they have used their influence to that end. In case there should be any doubt about my attitude in the matter, I should like to say that I sincerely hope that in dividual local education authorities will realise the importance of such consultation and will do their best to secure the active support of teachers and parents for their schemes.

Mr. BEAUMONT: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the reorganisation under the Hadow Report has been considerably delayed by uncertainly among local authorities as to the terms of the new Education Bill; and whether he can do anything to allay such uncertainty?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not aware that reorganisation schemes have been delayed for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member, and I do not see why there should be any uncertainty in regard to the Government's intentions seeing that they have given a definite pledge that the Bill for the raising of the school-leaving
age will be submitted to Parliament in time for the scheme to come into operation on the 1st April, 1931.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are various interpretations of the two words "in time," and that there is considerable uncertainty; and, if a proof of that uncertainty be brought to his notice, will he consider alleviating the anxiety of the local education authorities?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly, if there be any proof of it.

Mr. COVE: Can the right hon. Gentle man not tell us when the Bill will be introduced?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SKELTON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem inclined to answer.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Dr. HASTINGS: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many of the 29 existing and 15 contemplated nursery schools are open-air schools; and whether he proposes to sanction any further nursery schools that are not of the open-air type?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Of the 29 existing nursery schools, 23 are open-air schools and nearly all the others have good open-air facilities. The importance of securing the provision of a largely in creased number of nursery schools is so great that some latitude must be allowed, as, for example, where it is proposed to adapt an existing building for the purpose, but the majority of the new schools will be of the open-air type.

MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDARDS.

Mr. THURTLE: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Education if the Reports of the inspectors of his Department indicate that there is any difference between the moral and ethical standards of the children attending the non-sectarian elementary schools and those of the children attending the sectarian elementary schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir.

Mr. THURTLE: May we take it from that answer that the ethical and moral
instruction in the public controlled schools is perfectly satisfactory?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes.

STATISTICS.

Mr. THURTLE: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education the numbers, taken at the most convenient recent date, of children attending non-sectarian and sectarian elementary schools, respectively?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: On 31st March last there were 3,635,468 children on the registers of council schools, and 1,876,815 children on the registers of voluntary schools.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Are those children attending a purely non-sectarian school in which no religious instruction is given?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I would answer if I could hear the question.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. It is utterly impossible to hear even the hon. Gentleman's question or the answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the same point of Order. Would it be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to check the interjections on your left, which have prevented business being proceeded with?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am always anxious to check interjections from wherever they come.

STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any, and if so, what steps are being taken to ensure that the supply of trained teachers shall be sufficient to meet the demand which will be created by raising the school-leaving age to 15?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Paragraph 10 of Circular 1404, of which I am sending him a copy. The invitation which I issued to the training colleges to secure an in creased number of admissions has met with a satisfactory response. When I am more fully informed of the needs of the local authorities for teachers of various types under the new conditions I shall be in a better position to consider the need for any further steps.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Union of Teachers consider that Paragraph 10 is utterly inadequate to supply the needs?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have reason to know that that is not their opinion.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he knows?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has already answered the question on the Paper.

Mr. EDE: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education what steps he has taken or is taking to establish secondary standards of staffing and equipment in schools for children over the age of 11 coming at present or to be established under the elementary regulations; and whether any instructions have been issued recently to His Majesty's Inspectors for their guidance when discussing with local education authorities preliminary plans for new school buildings for children over 11 years of age?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Beyond such standards as are implicit in the limitation of classes for senior pupils to not more than 40, I have refrained from imposing standards, because I am anxious to leave authorities free to experiment with what is largely a new problem. As regards premises and equipment authorities are, I think, already aware of my desire to see, amongst other things, a generous provision of space for practical instruction and for recreation, and a liberal equipment of books.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (HEADMASTERS).

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the increasing tendency to confine the appointment to headships of secondary schools to members of the older universities, to the prejudice of many who have had to go to other universities more within their means; and whether he will obtain a return showing the number of persons from each of the universities who hold headships of secondary schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The information which I have does not support the suggestion that there is an increasing tendency to confine these appointments to members of the older universities, and
I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a return such as my hon. Friend proposes.

SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education if it is his intention to make any change in the system of appointing supplementary teachers in elementary schools in rural districts?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: This question is under consideration, but I cannot at present make any statement in regard to it.

PLAY-GROUNDS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider the providing of adequate playing-ground accommodation for children in rural and urban areas, having in view the Government's announcement that they will compulsorily raise the school age to 15; whether he considers that adequate supervision of children is necessary in the playing-grounds during their playtime; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am fully alive to the importance of adequate play grounds and playing-fields, and I have in mind the issue of a pamphlet containing suggestions for the guidance of local authorities in this matter. The super vision of the children on the play-ground or playing-field is a matter for the local authority, and I have no reason to think that it presents any special difficulty.

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

Mr. BEAUMONT: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have regulations limiting or forbidding the employment of married women teachers; how many married women teachers are employed in elementary schools; and what proportion this is of the whole number of women teachers employed?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that I have no statistics showing how many of the local education authorities have regulations limiting or forbidding the employment of married women teachers. The total number of pensionable married women teachers, other than widows, in public elementary schools and centres, on
the 31st March, 1929, was 11,963 out of the total of 116,771 women teachers employed, or a proportion of 10.25 per cent.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is there any possibility of obtaining the figures for the local authorities who have these regulations? As I gather this is exercising the attention of the National Union of Teachers, it might be rather interesting.

Sir G. TREVELYAN: I do not know that it is worth while to get a list of the authorities, but I will do what I can to find out the names.

ACCOMMODATION.

Lord E. PERCY: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education, in view of the fact that the accommodation required in senior schools in 1932, after the raising of the school-leaving age, will be approximately 200,000 in excess of the standard set to local authorities in Circular 1397 and 170,000 more than the accommodation required in 1939, but 240,000 less than the accommodation required in 1934, to what standard does he now suggest that local education authorities should work; and does he propose to issue clearer directions on this point than those contained in Circular 1404?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: As was stated in Circular 1397, this problem is essentially one which calls for local examination and solution in the light of the circumstances of each area, and accordingly I doubt whether it would serve any very useful purpose to issue any general directions on this point.

Lord E. PERCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Circular 1397 a standard was set of the number who would be present in the schools under the present law by the year 1933? Is he now proposing to substitute for that standard the number who will be pre sent in the schools when the school age is raised in 1932 or 1939 or 1934?

Mr. COVE: Is it not a fact that not a single authority has found any difficulty with regard to the so-called bulge?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: According to all the information that I am able to get, the authorities are not finding any particular difficulty in meeting the requirements of the earlier Circular or of my
Circular. The information which I get is that a very large number of the authorities already see their way to fulfilling all the requirements.

Lord E. PERCY: I am asking, what are the requirements? Are the requirements the numbers that will be present in 1934 or present in 1932?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The requirements are a decent standard of education for the children.

Mr. COVE: Is it not a fact that local authorities find no difficulty in finding accommodation for the 1933 standard?

WAR OFFICE (TITLE).

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the signature of the peace pact by the Government of the United Kingdom, he will consider the advisability of effecting a change in the title of the War Department by the substitution of the title Army Department?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am advised that a change in name would involve legislation, but the right hon. Member's suggestion will certainly be borne in mind.

Mr. TOOLE: Will the Prime Minister consider the question of changing the title to Peace Department instead of War Department?

Mr. ALBERY: Are the Government considering the substitution of one Ministry of Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a separate question.

DOMINIONS (MINISTERS' VISITS).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the apparent success of the Lord Privy Seal in opening up new markets in Canada for British coal and steel, he proposes to make arrangements for a series of visits to all the Dominions by members of the Government with a view to increasing our export trade with these Dominions in respect of every kind of British produce and manufacture?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad that the hon. Member appreciates the success of the Lord Privy Seal's mission to Canada. No further visits by Ministers to the Dominions are in immediate contemplation, but should occasion arise for such a visit offering similar prospects, the hon. Member may rest assured that the opportunity will be taken.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the success of the visit of the Lord Privy Seal, and the increase of unemployment in this country, why not send other Ministers to procure more work?

AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Mr. GRANVILLE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he will grant a whole day for the discussion of the Government's promised agricultural policy at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that the time at our disposal does not allow of this.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and I have been in consultation, and that a tentative arrangement was come to but has broken down through no fault of the Parliamentary Secretary? In view of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that he wishes at an early opportunity to discuss the policy of the Government, would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer, and give us an early day for a Debate on this subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: As nobody knows better than the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, it is always a very difficult thing for a Government, with the best will in the world, to arrange to get time for the necessary business in a short Session. That is quite honestly the position in which I am at the present moment, and it is because, after a very careful survey of the prospects of business, that feeling was reinforced in my mind, that I gave the answer which I have just given.

Viscount WOLMER: If the right horn. Gentleman is unable to allow time for the Minister of Agriculture to announce
his policy, would not the Government publish their agricultural policy in a White Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: Experience of White Papers in recent years has not been very happy, but the Noble Lord knows perfectly well, as an old Member of this House, that when Departments announce their policy, it has been, except under very exceptional circumstances, when the Vote for the Department was under discussion.

Viscount WOLMER: Does that mean that we are not to have a statement on the Government's agricultural policy until next year?

Mr. BEN RILEY: Is it not a fact that the policy of the late Government was not announced until late?

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the Prime Minister consider that a discussion on the Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture would not serve, because we cannot then discuss legislation, but only administration?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

TEST WORK.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representations from boards of guardians, or other bodies, since June last desiring to generally discontinue test work for able-bodied men as a condition of outdoor relief; and what reply, if any, has been made to such representations?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Yes Sir, I have received a few representations on this subject. I have expressed the view that it is desirable to have some form of test available in certain circumstances. While I am opposed to the wholesale application of test work to men who are unfortunately in the position of being unable to obtain work, I am of opinion that boards of guardians must have some means, other than the offer of the House, for dealing with the limited class whom they know to be undeserving of unconditional relief. In my view, test work should as far as possible he adapted to the training and educating of men so that they may be fitter to take on a new job when one offers.

Mr. THURTLE: In the event of test work suited for the training of the particular p0ersons involved not being avail able, will the Minister waive the question of test work?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall be glad to consider any case where that arises.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to stop boards of guardians from making men break or shift stones? May I have an answer to my question. [HON. MEMBERS; "Answer."] It is the first supplementary question which I have put. Will you kindly answer my question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of Order?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes. I asked the Minister of Health a perfectly courteous question which arises directly cut of his answer, namely, whether he is doing anything to stop local authorities from employing men on stone-breaking or stone-shifting, and the right hon. Gentleman has apparently some reason for not answering.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The reason was, Sir, that you had called the next question.

Mr. SPEAKER: As it is my fault, I will go back to the question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am very grateful to you, Sir. May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman the same question: Whether he is doing anything to prevent boards of guardians making men break or shift stones?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The inspectors of my Department are under definite instructions and are doing their best to see that boards of guardians fulfil the law.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That does not answer my question.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Sir K. WOOD: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representations from authorities in the necessitous areas in relation to further national relief and assistance; and whether he has any proposals to make to Parliament in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not think that at any time during the last eight years my Department has been free from
this question. I have received representations from the mining areas on the subject, and I have the matter under consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make some definite proposition? Can he give us any indication of the date?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot give a definite date, but it will be without undue delay.

RELIEF ON LOAN.

Sir K. WOOD: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the action of certain local authorities in purporting to take general action in cancelling debts incurred by way of relief on loan without regard to the circumstances of the individual debtors; whether he can state the total or any amount involved and the names of the authorities concerned; and whether he has taken any action?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have been made aware that two boards of guardians have taken action of the kind indicated in the question. That of the Tynemouth Board is, I understand, the subject of proceedings in the High Court, and I have ex pressed and can express no opinion on the subject. The Whitehaven Board of Guardians had taken similar action, but I am informed have rescinded their resolution. The amounts said to be involved are in the former case about £146,000 and in the latter case about £51,000. I am not in a position to vouch for the figures, but these are stated to be the amounts actually outstanding, and are not the amounts which might eventually be recoverable. To the Whitehaven Guardians, and others who have raised the issue, I have conveyed my view that the guardians have no power to effect a general cancellation of loans without regard to the ability of the individual debtor to repay.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the resolution of the Whitehaven Guardians been rescinded and no further action taken in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of it.

Mr. GRUNDY: 71.
asked the Minister of Health how many boards of guardians have passed resolutions in favour of cancelling special loans which were granted
in 1926; how many requests have been received by his Department from boards of guardians for permission to cancel such loans; and will he state what steps he has taken, or intends to take, to facilitate such cancellation before the Local Government Act of 1929 becomes operative?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No record is available of the number of boards of guardians who have passed such resolutions. I have received a few requests for permission to cancel debts in respect of relief granted on loan during 1926. The matter is not one in which I am empowered to give any permission to boards of guardians, and I am advised that guardians have no power to cancel loans generally, though they may exercise a discretion in individual cases, having regard to the actual circumstances of the particular persons concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNITY WELFARE.

Mr. FISON: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether any applications have been made by local authorities for approval of additional expenditure for providing increased allowances for milk at maternity centres; whether such applications have been granted; and what is the amount of such additional expenditure approved?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Sixteen such applications have been received since June last up to the present date, of which 10 have been wholly granted and one in part. The remaining five applications are under consideration. The additional expenditure already approved amounts to £1,513, while the total amount under consideration is £1,973.

WATER RESOURCES (COMMITTEES).

Mr. DAY: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the water shortage which took place last summer, he can state whether any comprehensive local investigations by advisory regional committees are taking place on the lines indicated by his Department; and whether it is proposed to consider the results of these investigations so that a national policy can be co-ordinated; and can he give the House any particulars?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Up to the present four advisory regional committees have been set up. They are South-West Lancashire (22 authorities), Sherwood area of Nottinghamshire (24 authorities) Isle of Wight (10 authorities), and Holland (Lincolnshire) (12 authorities). The committees are undertaking comprehensive investigations into the water re sources of their regions. I am urging the setting up of further regional committees, and I propose, when a series of regional investigations have been undertaken and reports issued, to consider the results with a view to co-ordination and the formulation of a national policy.

Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any reports from the Water Committees which have already been set up?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, we are in continual touch with them.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of suggesting to these people who make inquiries that they should take into consideration not only the shortage of water as affecting human beings, but also the agricultural wants in outlying districts which this year have caused very great disaster and inconvenience in many cases?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly.

BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES (EFFLUENT).

Mr. EVERARD: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether any steps are being taken to ensure that the most up-to-date methods of dealing with the effluent of sugar-beet factories are utilised, in view of the damage which has been done in the past by these effluents?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Pressure is brought to bear on those managing beet-sugar factories to secure proper methods of purification, and improvements have been effected. Experiments have been conducted in certain works for some time under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in co-operation with the industry and, while these experiments are not yet concluded, they give ground for anticipating that a method will be devised which will render possible satisfactory purification at reasonable cost.

Mr. EVERARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Bury St. Edmunds and Yorkshire and in one or two other places, where there are beet-sugar factories, there are in operation already systems of dealing with effluents which are entirely satisfactory, and why cannot that be made standard for the rest of the country?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no information about the particular factories to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. EVERARD: If I send the right hon. Gentleman the information, will he look into this question?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. WISE: 67.
asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to deal with the inflation of the prices of building materials by trusts, price rings, and other trade organisations; and whether he intends to reintroduce this Session the Profiteering in Building Materials Bill of 1924?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This question is engaging my attention but I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to future legislation.

Mr. WISE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the extension of the powers of the proposed Consumers' Council to cover this point?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The powers of the Consumers' Council are under consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's view on this question changed in any way?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not so much as the view of many hon. Members opposite.

Lord E. PERCY: Are we to under stand that the Consumers' Council is to deal not only with foodstuffs, as announced the other day, but also with building materials?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I did not wish to convey that impression. My hon. Friend asked whether that could be considered, and I said that the question of the powers of the Consumers' Council was being considered.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Mr. GOULD: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in extending the right to become voluntary contributors to certain other classes under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, he will make provisions to enable smallholders and small trades people to become insured persons under the present amending Bill?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As indicated in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, this matter belongs to the general survey of social insurance which is now in progress, and not to the present Bill.

Mr. GOULD: 70.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated number of widows which would be included in the amending Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill if the qualifying age was 50 years instead of the proposed 55 years now provided for in the Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the qualifying age for widows in Clause 1 of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill were reduced from 55 to 50, the effect would be to increase the number of widows who would become entitled to pensions not later than 1st January, 1931, from 295,000 to 350,000.

Mr. HARRIS: What is the real reason for drawing the line at 55?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Gentle man had better wait for the Debate which is to take place later on.

AIR DISASTER.

Mr. TOOLE: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is in a position to give the House any information regarding the air disaster which occurred at Foster Down yesterday?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): An inquest is being held to-morrow at Caterham. In the meantime, I am not in a position to add anything to the facts that have been publicly reported. I should like to take this opportunity of conveying an expression of profound condolence to the relatives of those who lost their lives in this most regrettable accident.

An HON. MEMBER: May I ask whether at Croydon any weather report had been received that there was likely to be mist or fog when this machine took the air?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot answer that question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. TINNE: I handed in two questions yesterday at the Table. One of those questions, which related to the issue of the 5 per cent. Conversion Loan, has been suppressed in to-day's Votes and Proceedings, but no notice of any sort has been sent to me. I am informed on making inquiries that it is upon your instructions, Mr. Speaker, that the question has not been printed. May I ask why no notice was sent to me that the question was inadmissible after it had been accepted at the Table, a course which has jockeyed me out of the opportunity of putting my question as a private notice question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry, but this is the first time that the hon. Member's complaint has been brought to my notice. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to look into it and see what is the cause of it.

CONVERSION LOAN.

Sir A. POWNALL: I desire to raise a point of Order. There are several questions on the Order Paper to-day with regard to the forthcoming Conversion Loan. Those questions were put down at the earliest possible moment after the issue was first announced, but, owing to the congestion of the Order Paper, they have not been reached to-day. The lists open to-morrow morning, and, therefore, I maintain that it is of urgent public importance that these questions should be answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, because obviously the result of the loan may depend to some extent on the reply that he gives to them.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: May I say that I gave notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for information on this matter, and I was told that several questions were on the Order Paper, and, therefore, my request could not be
acceded to? I desire to support my hon. and gallant Friend in asking for a statement.

Mr. SPEAKER: This question has not been submitted to me as a Private Notice question, but I think it of sufficient importance to allow a Private Notice question to be asked.

Sir A. POWNALL: 108.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the reasons which cause the issue of the new Conversion Loan bearing interest at 5 per cent. for at least the next 15 years?

Captain EDEN: 112.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his reasons for the issue of a new Five per cent. Con version Loan at this present time?

Mr. H. F. OWEN: 115.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms of issue of the Five per cent. Con version Loan, which have resulted in a fall in State securities, are designed to attract cash capital for debt conversion or whether they relate to fresh development schemes of the Lord Privy Seal's Department?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): This issue is not designed to raise cash for schemes of general development. The immediate occasion of the operation is to provide for maturities of Exchequer and Treasury Bonds falling due to a total of £30,000,000 in January and February next, but I have also to strengthen my position in advance against the large maturity of over £130,000,000 5½ per cent Treasury Bonds next May. Beyond this I feel it very desirable to curtail the volume of Treasury Bills, the amount of which in the hands of the market has increased substantially in recent times. The terms of the loan are attractive, but, while I both hope and expect that future operations as they become necessary will be able to be conducted on terms more advantageous to the Exchequer, it would, in my judgment, in view of what I have stated, have been most impolitic to post pone any action till a later date. I may add that, in order to provide against any unforeseen contingencies, I have considered it prudent to ensure the subscription of a sum sufficient to meet the earlier maturities of £30,000,000 and with this
object have obtained guaranteed subscriptions for the required amount at a cost of ½ per cent.

Sir A. POWNALL: May I ask whether there is any precedent for giving a com mission of ½ per cent., at a cost of £150,000, in the case of a Government loan of this nature, and why this was not mentioned on the prospectus, as has to be done in the case of any commercial issue?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The course of underwriting a Government loan is exceptional, but it has been done on previous occasions. I understand that there is some feeling in certain quarters as to the announcement not having been made earlier with regard to the underwriting of a portion of the loan. With regard to the fact of its not having been stated in the prospectus, it was not considered necessary to do so.

Captain EDEN: In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement to-day was necessarily brief and cannot now be debated, and of the admittedly great importance of this matter, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the terms of issue of the new Conversion Loan, and more especially with reference to the grant of preferential terms to certain persons which was not disclosed in the original prospectus."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. There is a Standing Order on this question, and I cannot see that the reasons given for moving the Adjournment comply with that Standing Order. Therefore, I am afraid that I must disallow the Motion.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On the question of urgency: This loan is to be issued to-morrow. The terms, until the actual issue has been made, are, of course, subject to the approval of this House. I submit to you, Sir, that surely now is the only opportunity on which those terms can be usefully discussed. If a day be allowed to elapse, the terms when accepted become a contract and the matter is
finished. At this moment there is a locus penitentiae, and there is a time when the House can pronounce a judgment upon it. I submit that never was a matter of more urgent importance. I am not arguing the merits of the Loan for a moment; all that I am submitting to you, Sir, is that the question is urgent and is well within the Standing Order.

Mr. SNOWDEN: On the question of urgency: The prospectus appeared on Sunday, and under the Standing Order a Motion for the Adjournment of the House is not admissible unless the earliest possible opportunity is taken of calling attention to the matter. I submit to you, Sir, that, seeing that this matter was not raised on Monday, when this impending issue was well known, the question of urgency cannot be maintained.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I submit to you that the question of urgency really arises, not on the first day on which the prospectus was issued, but on the first day on which it was known that preferential terms had been given to certain subscribers? It is true that it was rumoured in the Press yesterday, but the first official confirmation of the fact has been given within the last 10 minutes by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are you aware, Sir, that, in the City columns of the "Times" yesterday, all this was set out chapter and verse, and, therefore, must have been known the day before yesterday?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: May I say that I gave notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer raising this very point, so that a day's notice was given?

Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of the points that have been raised, may I draw your attention, Sir, to the terms of the question which you permitted the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) to ask, and may I submit to you that, that question having been handed in at the Table two days before, the matter arising from it is not definite and urgent?

Sir A. POWNALL: May I say that, when I handed in my question, I had no knowledge whatever with regard to the ½ per cent., so that the question is now urgent, although it was not then?

Captain EDEN: May I submit one further matter for your consideration? I think I am right in saying that the amended prospectus with reference to this loan only appeared in the Press this morning. Therefore, I cannot see how any more immediate steps could have been taken than we have taken by raising the matter now.

Sir F. HALL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that there was no necessity for stating in the prospectus that there was to be a payment of ½ per cent., which was tantamount to an underwriting commission. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the reply he has given is likely to make matters very difficult in regard to prosecutions that may eventually be necessary where all information is not forthcoming in the prospectus?

Mr. JAMES STUART: May I point out that there is a further point which was not mentioned in the prospectus, namely, the question of the rights of holders of the Treasury Five Per Cent. Loan?

Mr. SNOWDEN: With regard to the point which has been urged from the other side of the House, that the information with regard to the under writing has only just been disclosed, there is on the Order Paper this morning a question dealing with this matter, and, therefore, it must have been public property already.

Mr. SPEAKER: In the various points of Order that have been raised nothing has been said to change my mind. However desirable it may be that this matter should be raised as a matter of definite public importance, it does not comply with Standing Order No. 10. That is the only thing that I have to consider, and, therefore, I cannot allow the Motion to be moved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Would the Prime Minister state what will be the business of the House next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, we shall take the further stages of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, and any other Orders may be taken on any day if time should permit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet fixed a date for the introduction of a Bill regarding unemployment insurance, and can he state when it is likely to be printed?

The PRIME MINISTER: All I can say is that it will not reach the public or House of Commons stage next week.

Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Sup ply."—[The Prime Minister.]

ARBITRATION (FOREIGN AWARDS) BILL. [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

MOTOR VEHICLES (UNAUTHORISED USER) BILL,

"to prevent unauthorised persons taking and driving away motor vehicles," presented by Mr. Secretary Clynes; to be read a Second tune upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Mr. Hall-Caine, Lieut.-Colonel Gault, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, and Mr. Wells; and had appointed in substitution; Captain Harold Balfour, Mr. Braithwaite, Major Harvey, Captain Sidney Herbert, and Mr. Palmer.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Thirty Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Coast Protection Bill): Sir Robert Aske, Mr. Brooke, Sir Henry Cautley,
Colonel Sir George Courthope, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Egan, Viscount Elmley, Lord Fermoy, Mr. Fielden, Mr. Gould, Mr. Fergus Graham, Mr. Groves, Major Hills, Captain Austin Hudson, Mr. Johnston, Miss Lawrence, Mr. Morley, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Ramsbotham, Sir Gervais Rentoul, Mr. West Russell, Mr. W. R. Smith, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Strauss, Mr. Thorne, Mr. W. M. Watson, Mr. Graham White and Mr. Womersley.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

INDIA.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I have to apologise to the House that on the occasion of one of the most important Debates which has taken place in it for some time I have to take up the time of the House for a few minutes with a personal explanation arising out of the statement which I made last Friday at 11 o'clock. The House may be aware of the fact that never before have I taken any notice of any personal statement about myself, true or untrue, which has appeared in the Press. I should never have dreamt of taking any notice of this one, had it not been for the fact that I felt that in the article in question were contained certain elements of danger to the situation as between this country and the Indian Empire. I felt it my duty to make the statement which I did. I shall now be as brief as I can.
On Friday, 20th September, the Private Secretary of the Secretary of State for India arrived at Bourges, in France, charged with a letter for me from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister asked me to concur in the issue of a statement concerning Dominion status in the event of the Simon Commission being consulted and agreeing and the consent of all parties being obtained. The Prime Minister was pressing me to reply, as he was leaving very shortly for America. I was alone at Bourges when I got that message. What would anyone in my position have done? He could have done one of two things: He could have taken the coward's course and have said: "I will give you no answer." I took upon myself personal responsibility with some risk, as I have done, before and shall do again if necessary. I felt, I am asked to concur in a situation in which the Government and the Government of India and the Simon Commission concur, and in no other situation; it is not for me to consider what answer any other political party might give.
I was brought up in the traditions of the party to which I belong, and one of our traditions is never to let a friend down—and I Stand by it. I replied that so far as I was concerned myself I con-
curred. I could not speak for my colleagues, because they were scattered; I could not speak for the party. When I got home, if the circumstances of the situation were that the other concurrence was obtained, I would do my best to persuade them to take my view. There was only one matter with which I could possibly state my agreement, namely to support the Prime Minister in the event of the Simon Commission expressing its approval of what the Prime Minister proposed to do. This agreement, in the circumstances, I was prepared to accord. There was nothing else that I was asked to agree to. I received no further communications from that date from the Government I took no further step in the matter, and it was not my duty to do so. Only when I returned from fulfilling a public engagement in Liverpool and met my colleagues of the late Cabinet on 23rd October, I learned for the first time that the Simon Commission had not approved of the publication of Lord Irwin's Note. Clearly an entirely new situation had arisen. I therefore called together the ex-Secretaries of State for India from amongst my colleagues, together with Lord Salisbury, and it was at once decided to write to the Acting Prime Minister, referring to the terms of the Prime Minister's letter to me of 19th September, and pointing out that in the altered circumstances I and my party could not agree to support the publication of the Note.
So much for the history of the matter up to that point. Now I must refer for a moment or two to the article which appeared in the "Daily Mail" on Friday, 1st November, and the denial of the accuracy of the statement of facts and implications of fact which I gave in the House on the same day.
(1) It was untrue to state that without their knowledge I had committed my colleagues to support the Socialist Government in granting full Home Rule and Dominion status to India. What I had done was to give my personal assurance that I myself would do what I could in regard to this matter, always on the condition that the Simon Commission approved. I expressly safeguarded myself by saying that I could not pledge my colleagues because they were scattered.
(2) It was untrue to state that the Shadow Cabinet of the Conservative party insisted that I should formally re-
pudiate my personal pledges in the letter or that they required me to write a letter to the Prime Minister withdrawing the approval and promise of support for Indian Home Rule. I am quoting from the article. What actually happened was that as soon as I knew that the Simon Commission refused to take any responsibility for the publication of Lord Irwin's Note, I met my colleagues and told them the whole circumstances of my correspondence with the Prime Minister, and then wrote with their approval, and not under their coercion, my letter to the acting Prime Minister.
(3) It is untrue to say that the incident took place between Lord Irwin and myself at Aix; it took place between an emissary of the Prime Minister and my self at Bourges.
(4) It is untrue to say that I deliberately pledged myself and my party to support the scheme which Lord Irwin was concocting with the Socialist Government. I pledged myself alone, and that only conditionally upon the assent to the proposed publication being obtained from the Simon Commission. In this matter my colleagues and I acted in full agreement. Although the interchange of letters between the Prime Minister and myself took place on 20th September—the letter was written on the 19th—it was not until after 23rd October that I heard definitely that as far back as 24th September Sir John Simon had informed the Secretary of State for India that the Commission dissociated itself from the proposed publication by the Government of Lord Irwin's Note as to Dominion status. I only add that a later paragraph in this article says that I bear a responsibility which I shall find it hard to explain to my followers in recommending the appointment of Lord Irwin as Viceroy. Let me tell the House that when it became my duty to submit a name to His Majesty for the Viceroyalty of India, Lord Birkenhead, then Secretary of State for India, and I discussed that matter at length, and passed in review many names. It is a most anxious and grave responsibility when any Prime Minister has to find a Viceroy of India. It was only when we had considered many names that he suggested the name of Mr. Edward Wood. My first answer was, "I cannot spare him." He is one of my most intimate friends, not only politically but personally, a man whose ideals and
views in political life approximate mostly to my own, a colleague to whom I can always tell my inmost thoughts. On reflection I felt that India must have the best that we could send. That was the reason why I agreed. I asked him if I might submit his name. I had great difficulty in persuading him. He was interested in his work, which he was per forming admirably. He did not want to leave his home and only took up that office with the high sense of duty that we all expect of him. I will only add that if ever the day comes when the party which I lead ceases to attract to itself men of the calibre of Edward Wood, then I have finished with my party. In conclusion, let me say that a friend of mine who knows more of journalistic effort than I, has told me that this article was merely a journalistic stunt. I am an etymologist, and I agree. I am glad to think that the word "stunt" is as little English in its derivation and origin and character as the whole of that article.
Let us pass away from this rather sordid subject and give our attention to a matter of the greatest import which can come before this House. To talk, as many people have been doing, of a crisis, is absurd. There is no crisis; there has been no crisis. To speak of the situation as one in which there are elements which require explanation and elucidation would be true. That is a very different thing. In our view, a blunder was made when a statement of policy was made without the assent of the Simon Commission, and we felt that for two reasons. We felt that there were two risks being run. I hope very much—I say this in all sincerity—that the Debate to-day may ease our minds with regard to those risks. The one risk was the risk of prejudicing the Report of the Simon Commission, and on that I hope that if my right hon. Friend the Chair man of the Commission thinks fit to intervene in this Debate he may be able to allay any anxiety which we have felt on that score.
The other risk is a grave one—the risk of misunderstanding in India. It may be that our second doubt may be relieved in the speech of the Secretary of State for India, but I am bound to ask him a question on this point in this House, because although it is true that all of us probably have read the Debate in an-
other place, and while it is true that we are all of us as individuals cognisant of what took place, yet the fact remains that officially we have no knowledge of what took place in another place, and we must request a statement to be made to ourselves. I cannot put better in words what we want to know than to repeat what was put at the beginning of a long and thoughtful speech by Lord Reading in another place. I ask the Secretary of State for India if he will be good enough to tell us: (1) Whether all the conditions and reservations contained in the Declaration of 1917, and the Preamble of the Government of India Act of 1919 remain in full force and effect and applicable to Dominion status. (2) Whether this statement implies any change in the policy hitherto declared or in the time that this status may be attained. I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if the Secretary of State would tell us something of the proposed conference as far as he is able—as to its composition and its terms of reference, if any.
I should like to speak to the House rather more generally on this great problem of statemanship which lies before us. The mystery, the romance, the coincidence of real life far transcends the mystery and the romance and the coincidence of fiction. I would like at the beginning of my remarks to remind hon. Members of something that has always struck me as one of the strangest and most romantic coincidences that have entered into our political life. Far away in time, in the dawn of history, the greatest race of the many races then emerging from prehistoric mists was the great Aryan race. When that race left the country which it occupied in the western part of Central Asia, one great branch moved west, and in the course of their wanderings they founded the cities of Athens and Sparta; they founded Rome; they made Europe, and in the veins of the principal nations of Europe flows the blood of their Aryan forefathers. The speech of the Aryans which they brought with them has spread through out Europe. It has spread to America. It has spread to the Dominions beyond the seas. At the same time, one branch went south, and they crossed the Himalayas. They went into the Punjab and
they spread through India, and, as an historic fact, ages ago, there stood side by side in their ancestral land the ancestors of the English people and the ancestors of the Rajputs and of the Brahmins. And now, after aeons have passed, the children of the remotest generations from that ancestry have been brought together by the inscrutable decree of Providence to set themselves to solve the most difficult, the most complicated political problem that has ever been set to any people of the world.
The fact of those migrations accounts for so many of those differences between us that make this problem peculiarly difficult. Those who left their Asiatic home and drifted west and north found that by the climatic conditions and the struggle for their existence it was their active, their political energies which were called for. And so it was from immemorial times the tropical climate, the comparative ease of growing enough on which to live, called out of the passive and the meditative qualities of that branch of the great Aryan race which moved down into India. You see those differences well examplified if you look at the well-known Hindu saying:
Life is but a journey from one village to another, and not a resting place.
Compare that with what I have read myself in the days when I was in business in an office in Manchester:
This is a house of business. Do your business and go about your business and leave other people to do their business.
The great danger and difficulty is that Mr. Ghandi would find it as difficult to understand that last quotation, as, I may say with profound respect, Lord Rothermere would find it to understand the other.
Our nation, as we know it now, is a young nation by the side of India. In 1,300 years we have been struggling to form a nation from many nationalities. It has been a hard fight. It has meant that our people have had to develop in the course of that struggle more and more a political sense, and they have been made by that struggle adaptable. In India, customs and codes exist which have lasted for 3,000 years and more, with the natural results that we find there a conservatism of which we in this country cannot dream. From our struggles we are a politically minded
people; in India they are not. This great political experiment embodied in the Declaration of 1917 is one which our people have to consider at the very time that we are making a great political experiment of our own—when we are entering for the first time into complete democracy with manhood suffrage. It does not make our task any easier. No man can say yet whether we, with all that political strength behind us, are going to make a success of our democracy. We are here in this House to try and make it a success. Time alone will show whether the innate capacity of our race will rise to the occasion, and we shall be successful. The responsibility which is ours is thrown upon us at a moment such as I have endeavoured to describe.
In speaking of India, I am always apt to pay special regard to the views of those who have had experience of administration there, and I want to remind the House of some well-known words of Lord Reading which he used, if I remember aright, at the time that he read the King Emperor's message in India in the year 1921. Speaking of the high destiny which awaits India if she chooses to avail herself of it as a partner in the British Empire, he remarks that
An auspicious start has been made, and it rests with her people to complete the journey.
"Journey," I think, is an apt word in that connection. Let us never forget that the whole of that great Indian peninsular had been for centuries the scene of invasions and of struggles, and that perhaps the best thing we have ever done, if we should do no more, is that for a space we have given her internal peace. We have given her justice and the rule of law. I pray that those three things—peace, justice, and rule of law—may accompany India and ourselves throughout every stage of that long and arduous journey which lies before us now. At the best, it is a difficult journey. Those who know most of India, whether they be Indians or our own fellow countrymen, know well how difficult is the journey that will have to be taken through the tangled jungle of creeds and castes, of Indian interests and of immemorial hate, and the travellers along that road, even as we have had to do in our time, must train for their journey.
No greater dis-service can be done to India to-day than irresponsible criticism on the one hand or ignorant advice on the other. Now that this responsibility, laid upon us since 1917, is with us nothing is more necessary—and I give no advice to India on this—for us than that those who desire to play any part in the co-operation of India and this country should spare no pains to make themselves acquainted with her history in the widest sense, and the history of her religions and her civilisations. Only in that way can we realise some of those difficulties which will have to be faced. Only in that way can any advice which we may tender foe of the slightest use. Advice tendered with sympathy is good, but sympathy without knowledge is of little use. There should be sympathy and knowledge, and, may I add, if obtainable, wisdom.
We have promised India in our Declaration responsible government. Do we mean it, or do we not? I will say at once, that all classes in this country are agreed that that pledge shall be honoured in the letter and in the spirit, and it will be the most responsible task of the Commission of which my right hon. Friend is the Chairman to point out what steps at this moment it is desirable to take. Let me say this, in passing, and most sincerely: Never has a more responsible task been placed upon five or six Members of Parliament than has been placed upon that Commission. They have made great sacrifices to do their work, sacrifices financial and of health and time, and they have done it gladly because they believe that they are doing it in a great cause; but the strength of their right arm is weakened and their moral force is sapped if they cannot feel that all through, from the beginning, at the present time and until they present their Report, they have the united support of the people of this country. I hope that nothing will be said to-day from any quarter of the House that may in any degree, however remote, weaken in any sense that faith that they have in the sympathy, the goodwill, the understanding, and the concurrence of the whole of this House and of the whole country.
The weight of Parliament is behind them, not only in an Act of Parliament but in will, and I say, with confidence,
and deliberately, that we trust them to day as we trusted them at the beginning. No man can say what the shape of the steps of that journey may be. Whoever it may be, whether at the present day, or in days to come, who has to consider those steps, I have no fear but that he will take into consideration the history, the traditions, the culture and the genius of India. It may well be, in the process of time and out of the depths of their own traditions and culture, there may be modifications of the democratic system as it has been evolved in the West; we cannot tell, but our own desire is that these things, as time goes on, shall be threshed out by sincere men representing both countries.
We have to show sympathy and patience, and we have to supply men for this task of the finest quality we have. I have spoken during the last two or three years at Oxford and Cambridge, and I have pointed out at private meetings of undergraduates that, although for a short time after the 1917 Declaration there was a feeling in the Indian Civil Service that perhaps the day had gone by when that Service would command, as it had done in the past, the best that we had got, and while I could understand that feeling, the fact was that never were better men required, and never would better men be required than in the future, and for this reason, that the task is infinitely more difficult. You want a first-class man to administer; you want an almost more than first-class man when his task is not only that of administration, but also of leading, advising, helping people along a path new to them, and difficult to anybody. There is work for the beat that we have got.
I should like to add a word on a phrase which has now been used by the Government of India, of course, on the instructions of the Government at home—the phrase "Dominion status." I have mentioned our anxiety at the employment of that phrase at this particular time. I am not a lawyer; I am a layman. As a lay man, I am always a little nervous about a definition, because in an amateur way I am a student of history, and I have noticed the damage that definitions have done in this world. It was attempting to define too strictly that split Christendom into fragments which have never
been reunited. I have not a particularly quick or acute mind, and I am always a little bit nervous of definitions. What I would put to the House and to my hon. Friends behind me is this—when self-Government or responsible Government in India is attained what is to be the position of India in the Empire? None can say when responsible Government will be established and none can say what shape it will take. These things will be determined by forces which we cannot control, British, Indian and world forces, but can there be any doubt whatever, in any quarter of the House, that the position of an India, with full, responsible Government in the Empire, when attained, and whatever form it may take so far as the internal Government of India is concerned, must be one of equality with the other States in the Empire?
Nobody knows what Dominion status will be when India has responsible Government, whether that date be near or distant, but surely no one dreams of a self-governing India with an inferior status. No Indian would dream of an India with an inferior status, nor can we wish that India should be content with an inferior status, because that would mean that we had failed in our work in India. No Tory party with which I am connected will fail in sympathy and endeavour to help in our time to the uttermost extent of our ability to a solution of the greatest political problem that lies before us to day. I do hope, as I said before, that whatever expressions of opinion may be given in this Debate not a word will be said which, at a critical time like the present, may in any way weaken the authority, moral or otherwise, of my right hon. Friend's Commission, or the Government of India, in that great country. We politicians, politicians as we are—so much of our fighting is in the twilight, or in the mist—pass away before we know the result of our work. We are cumbered with many things, and occupied with the problems of daily life which press with greater or less severity on the multitudes of our own people, but here, in this problem, to the solution of which we have put our hand, we have a great ideal set before us, and we can not hope to live to see it realised. Our work must be done in faith, but let us build for the future with the same faith
that we work for the present, so that when, perhaps, in long generations to come, there are men who will be putting the coping stone upon this building, they may, haply, not be unforgetful of those of us who toiled in faith among the foundations.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not have risen now, after the eloquent speech to which we have listened from the Leader of the Opposition, had it not been that I received an intimation this morning from the Secretary of State for India that he preferred that I should get up immediately after the Leader of the Opposition, and before he replied. I think that is a very admirable arrangement, especially as I have one or two questions to ask, which I hope he will be good enough to answer. The Leader of the Opposition began with a personal statement in reply to some newspaper criticism. I have also been subject to newspaper criticism in regard to action which I am supposed to have taken on this matter, but I do not think that I will bother the House to reply to any criticism of that kind, because if I began to reply to newspaper criticisms in this House I should have to ask for a special Session. But I think it is necessary, since the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has set the precedent, to make one or two personal statements in reference to the part which I have taken in recent negotiations and in the reforms which have been the basis of those inquiries.
I did not receive from the Prime Minister the honour of a letter informing me what he proposed to do. There was a communication, I understand, from the Secretary of State for India, to Lord Reading, and Lord Reading informed me, and my colleagues were also in formed. That was somewhere about the end of September. The whole of our action, Lord Reading's, mine, and my colleagues, up to the very date, the very hour, when I put down the question to the right hon. Gentleman last Friday, has been confined exclusively to entreating the Government and entreating the Viceroy not to issue this Declaration until after the report of the Simon Com mission. We took no other step, although I had the honour of a personal interview with the Viceroy some weeks ago, before he went back to India, there
was not even an allusion in the Press to that fact. I have had no communication, and I can speak on behalf of my colleagues as well, either direct or in direct, with the Press, in reference to anything which took place. We were consulted confidentially. We respected that confidence, and we only took public action when it was clear that the statement was to be made in spite of all protests. Then we thought it was our duty to take the necessary steps to bring it forward in the House of Commons. I think it is necessary for me to make that statement on behalf of myself and my colleagues.
With regard to my other personal association with this matter, I was the head of the Government that introduced these reforms. I presided over the Imperial Cabinet that sanctioned the terms of these Declarations in reference to the future self-government of India, and, may I say at the outset, that there is no question in so far as hon. Members sitting around me are concerned, of going back one single inch from these Declarations? These Declarations were considered carefully, not by a British Cabinet; they were considered during the War at Imperial Cabinets where there were representatives of every Dominion in the British Empire. India was also represented. They were made in the name of the King Emperor. His word was pledged, and no one that I know of means to go back on that word, or let it down. The honour of the British Empire is also involved. That will not be discredited. That is all I wish to say on the personal side.
I should like to examine for a moment what is the pledge which was given in this Declaration in respect of the ultimate goal of self-government in India, because the whole question, the whole issue, in so far as there is an issue, is whether by the Declaration which has been issued recently, the impression has been created in India that there is a change of policy, that we have departed from that pledge, that we have gone far beyond it, and that there is an absolutely new departure which was not contemplated in any of these pledges. What I am going to press for is a definite and clear statement in this House that the Government contemplate nothing of that kind. I should like to state, very definitely, what I conceive to be the
pledge, given by, I think, His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught on behalf of the King Emperor, and also by the Viceroy, but, before I come to the pledge, I should like, in explaining what I conceive to be its meaning, to recall a few fundamental facts in regard to India which will explain the nature of the pledge, and why full partnership was not conceded immediately. It was not due to any reactionary sentiment but owing purely to what the Aga Khan in a very remarkable letter to-day calls practical difficulties. What were those practical difficulties? The first was that never in the history of India had India or any part of it, any of its many peoples and nations, ever enjoyed the slightest measure of democratic self-government until 1919. The second is that 95 per cent. of the population is illiterate. What is the third? That there are as many different races, nationalities and languages in India as there are in the whole of Europe. To talk about India as a unit, as if it were one people, is to display an ignorance of the elementary facts of the case. There has never been unity in India except under the rule of a conqueror. In the letter to which I have alluded to-day, the letter of the Aga Khan, he refers to the case of Austria Hungary. That is a very ominous citation, because, although there were only half-a-dozen different nationalities in the Austrian Empire, it fell to pieces because of the weakness of the central authority. But in India there are at least 30 or 40.
All these facts had to be taken into account when you came to consider what measure of self-government it was possible to concede to India. What happened? The House will forgive me if I just give a statement of how this originated, and how the pledge came to be given. After the War, or rather during the War, there was a very deep sense of gratitude to India for the great and loyal support of all its peoples in a very great emergency. There was also throughout the world a very extraordinary resurgence of national feeling. In Europe, in Asia, and even in other parts of the world there was an extraordinary resurgence. I never agree with some Members on the other side who thought we made a mistake in giving definite recog-
nition to that fact in Europe, and I think ultimately it will work out all right, though at the moment it is creating trouble. There was also the impulse of the dominating cry throughout the world about self-determination. These were the conditions in which we considered the question of self-government for India, and we decided in the Imperial War Cabinet, as it was then in 1917—this country with the Prime Ministers of all the Dominions present—that there should be accorded to the people of India a considerable measure of self-government, limited, restricted, experimental, tentative, but we promised, and this is where the pledge comes in, that gradually, if the experiment were successful, that we would ex tend it until India ultimately enjoyed full partnership in the Empire on equal terms with our great Dominions. A great ideal, a noble one, a fruitful one, partnership of the East and West in a great community of nations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ultimately."] Ultimately, yes. We made it clear that the ultimate goal could only be attained by stages, and the length and number of those stages must be determined gradually from time to time by the success that attended the experiment at each stage.
May I call the attention of the House, if it is necessary, to the fact that this is the course that has been pursued in every Dominion of this Empire. Canada did not attain Dominion status immediately. It began with self-government of the provinces. It took nearly a generation before you had confederation. [An HON. MEMBER: "And rebellion."] No; rebellion had nothing whatever to do with it. It was a voluntary act, and, after very long reflection and discussion and careful adjustment between the provinces, it took nearly a generation be fore you converted self-government for the provinces into confederation for the whole of Canada, and even after con federation it took nearly another generation before Canada, attained what is now known as Dominion status. In Canada, you have only two races. In South Africa the same thing applies. You had provincial Governments there, and it took I do not know how long be fore those provincial Governments federated into a Dominion. You had two races there. In Australia, you had provincial Governments, and it took
much more than a generation before that developed into anything in the nature of federation or a Dominion. These are the precedents inside the British Empire at the present moment. In the Act of Parliament which established the constitution under which India is now operated there was a definite promise to appoint a Commission at the end of 10 years to examine the results of the first decade and report—I am not reading the words, I am speaking from memory—whether it would be safe or desirable to make any further advance on the road of self-government, if so how, and how far, and whether any change in the direction of the road was necessary.
5.0 p.m.
What has happened? I am going to ask the attention, if I may, of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India, because I am coming to what has happened in the last few days. What has happened? The late Government took steps to redeem that definite Parliamentary pledge. They appointed a Commission under the Statute. They did not delay. It was a Commission representative of all parties in this House and the country. The names were submitted to this House, and to the other House. It was in every sense of the term not merely a Statutory Commission, but a national Commission representing all sections of opinion, and there was complete unanimity on its appointment. It has been sitting—what is it, two years or about 18 months? It has visited India twice. It has consulted everybody there who was prepared to give assistance, and it gave all an opportunity of presenting their case. It has done everything that could be done in order to obtain full knowledge of all the facts; a singularly able Commission of men highly respected by all parties in the States. We were all waiting its Report with a view to be advised as to what further steps, if necessary, Parliament ought to take. They were considering their Report. I understand—I have no authority to say it, but I see from the papers—that the Report is expected early next year. Without waiting for the Report, while the Report is being considered, there is a Declaration issued with the consent of the Government, at a time, in such a manner, and with such an obscurity in some phrases, that it has created an impression in India that it
is intended immediately, without delay, to confer full Dominion status on India, and that the joint conference which has been summoned is for the purpose of framing a scheme. What is much more important is to know what the view of the Government is. Let us see. Both political parties protested before the Declaration was issued. We have heard that from the Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India will not deny that we protested the moment we were consulted. There was a provisional assent given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition subject to the assent of the Commission. Not merely was that assent not obtained, but—I am using now the words of Lord Passfield:
they made it clear that they thought the Declaration was inopportune.
That means that they were opposed to it. I am quoting nothing which has been said to me by any member of the Com mission; I am merely using the words which were used in another place. Two political parties protested. Up to the present all political parties have acted together. In 1917, the House of Commons was absolutely united in the steps which we took; there was no political party which dissented. In 1919 the Bill passed, not only without any protest by any political party, but with the support of all political parties. [An HON. MEMBER; "There was no Division!"] That is so, there was no Division. There was complete unanimity on the two great steps. The pledge which was given obtained the assent of all political parties, Conservative, Liberal and Socialist. The Commissioners were appointed with the full assent of all parties. The first time action has been taken which has divided the nation in reference to India, which has put against the Government of the day parties which in the aggregate re present a majority of the people of this country, is the step which has been taken within the last few weeks; and that is a very serious matter. An element of division has been introduced.
What was the ground of the protest of both political parties and of the Com mission? Our protest, I think, was on the ground that no declaration ought to be made until the Statutory Commission had reported. The thing was being examined. Whether anything ought to be
done in India in the way of reform was the very subject matter of a Statutory Commission, and a Commission which had a greater authority than the Secretary of State for India, than the whole of the Government, even than the Viceroy upon that particular subject, because it was statutory. It was set up under an Act of Parliament, and upon this matter they were the only people who were authorised by law to express an opinion. [Interruption.] I do not mean to say that in dividual Members of this House could not express an opinion, but I mean the only official opinion that could be expressed unless Parliament reversed the Act, was the opinion of the Commission. Until the Act is reversed, the only people who are authorised to express an official opinion are the Statutory Commission set up by Parliament. [Interruption.]

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I desire to ask whether my right hon. Friend is representing to this House that the Simon Commission had authority to suspend action by this House?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend had only listened to what I said, he would have heard me say that until the Houses of Parliament reversed the authority which they had set up them selves, it was only that authority which could pronounce an official opinion on behalf of this country. What did they do? They protested. Both parties pro tested, on the ground—and as I under stand from Lord Passfield the Commission took the same ground—that it was inopportune. We certainly took the ground, and as I rather understand from what has been said in another place, the right hon. Gentleman opposite took the same ground, that a declaration made at this stage with regard to Dominion status would create an impression in India, which is a mistaken one, that there was some great change contemplated. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: Were they not right in their prediction, were they not right in their conjecture, that the effect of that declaration would be to create an absolutely false impression as to the intentions of the Government? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] An hon. Member says "No." I will just read a declaration made by the most important leaders of Indian opinion, the leaders of the Indian National Congress. As I under-
stand, the Government wanted to influence the Indian National Congress which is to meet in December. The whole of the leaders of the Indian National Congress met to consider this declaration. They had with them men who were sup posed to be very much more moderate, and were not quite associated with the Congress; and this is their declaration:
We hope to be able to tender our co-operation with His Majesty's Government in their effort to evolve a scheme for a Dominion Constitution suitable to India's needs.… Some doubt has been expressed about the interpretation of the paragraph in the statement made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty's Government regarding Dominion status.
Will the House kindly attend to the next words:
We understand, however, that the conference is to meet, not to discuss when Dominion status should be established, but to frame a scheme of Dominion Constitution for India. We hope that we are not mistaken in thus interpreting the import and the implications of this weighty pronouncement of the Viceroy.
What does that mean? It means that the leaders of the Indian National Congress, the whole of the leaders of the Swaraj movement in India, whether extreme or moderate, are under the impression that the joint conference is to be summoned, not to discuss when Dominion status is to be introduced, but actually to frame a scheme for the purpose of carrying it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That seems to be the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does not say that!"] If hon. Gentlemen will follow what comes after this, it will be seen that they ask that immediate steps should be taken, before the scheme is ready, to prepare public opinion for it in the way of the release of prisoners and otherwise. What does that mean? They are clearly under the impression that it is the intention for the joint conference not to discuss whatever reforms may be suggested by the Statutory Commission, but to go beyond that and to frame a Dominion scheme for India. I say that that is a very serious matter, and if that is the impression in India and if that impression is correct, it is no use saying that there is no. change either in time or in substance. Why did the First Commissioner of Works issue that shout of joy? He did not do it because there was no change. He immediately danced before
the Ark, but why did he do it? He did not do it because there were Tables of the Covenant which had been put there by my poor Government; he was under the impression that the right hon. Gentle man the Secretary of State for India and his friends had smashed those Tables and put in new ones—this pocket edition of Moses!

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): But I never worshipped the Golden Calf.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has shown a very shrewd appreciation of what is known as "the main chance"; and the calf which has been sacrificed for him has its golden side. The right hon. Gentleman must take as well as give. I ask the right hon. Gentleman; in the face of that does he say that there is no impression in India that there is a change? Does he mean to tell me that his friend the First Commissioner of Works was not under the impression that a great change was heralded by this Declaration? Of course there was, and it is of the most vital importance that there should be an answer given. This is practically a challenge by the leaders of the Congress. They say:
We hope we are not mistaken in thus interpreting the import and implications of this weighty pronouncement of the Viceroy.
What does that mean? The question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this; is that a fair interpretation of the Viceroy's Declaration? It is not merely that we are entitled to know it, but they are entitled to know it in India. Is it really so unreasonable that they should have thought there was a great change of policy? What has happened? The Viceroy comes over to this country, a thing almost without precedent, during his term of office. He comes here, and it is known, to consult the Government and leaders of public opinion here with regard to what is going to happen. It is announced that a very important deilverance is going to be made by him as soon as he returns to India. Is it conceivable to English public opinion, not only to Indians, that he is going to make a Declaration merely that there is no change, merely repeating what has been said before by previous Viceroys, and that there is no change at all in substance or in time. Indian opinion
naturally thought that this was a great deliverance, and portended a very startling change of policy. I know that in the discussion in the House of Lords a Declaration was made by the Government, by Lord Parmoor, and I think Lord Passfield as well, which made it clear that, as far as the Government are concerned, there was no change at all.
I will tell you what I want. I am not going to say a word about Lord Parmoor. I have a great respect for him. He was an old Member of this House when I first entered it and I should not like to say one word which would be regarded as disrespectful. But Lord Parmoor is not the Secretary of State for India, he is not Prime Minister. Lord Parmoor is not associated in the slightest degree with the Indian Government, and, with all due respect to him, he is not known in India, and a Declaration by Lord Parmoor in the face of this manifesto by the Viceroy, upon which this interpretation has been placed, is not an adequate answer to what has been said by the Leaders of the Congress in India. Even the "Times," which has given a certain measure of support to the Government on this question, said the statement was so prolix and confused that the words which mattered were really embedded in so many words that the Declaration which was awaited by public opinion was completely buried. I am going to ask this. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a categorical statement that the interpretation placed by Indian leaders upon the declaration of the Viceroy is not accurate and that they have misunderstood the intentions of the Viceroy? That, I think, is vital. If you do not they will still continue to believe that that is the intention. I know it will be unpleasant in India that a Declaration of that kind should be made immediately, but not nearly as unpleasant as it will be four or five months hence when the Joint Conference comes together. It is far better that you should say straightaway really what the intention of the Government is, otherwise this very unwise pronouncement will lead to a complete catastrophe in India.
Let us examine for a moment what may happen if the Conference meets. If it meets in February or March, or after the Report of the Simon Commission, the question then will be, What are you going
to discuss? If the representatives of the Government say, "We are here to discuss the Report of the Statutory Commission" the Leaders of a National Congress will say, "No, we are here to discuss the Viceroy's Declaration and that means Dominion Status"; and for the first time the Government will have to say, "We never promised anything of the kind, except as an ultimate goal." What will be the effect then? There will be charges of breach of faith, charges of perfidy, and that is the worst thing that can happen in the relations of this country and Indian. I am going to ask the Secretary of State to make it perfectly clear in his answer to-day that this is not the right interpretation of the Declaraion which was issued with his sanction and the sanction of the Government, that we adhere by every pledge which has been given in the name of the King and the Empire and do not take the view which has been declared in this very vital and important document that we are immediately going to set up a Dominion in India.

Mr. BENN: I am sorry, in one way, that I made the interjection I did just now, because I may have contributed something to producing an atmosphere which I am sure is wholly lamentable. I am standing here with an immense consciousness of the responsibility that rests upon one slenderly equipped, and I have been thinking all the time the Debate has been going on of what is going to be the effect of what is said upon Lord Irwin in India in the discharge of his duties. I should like to say that if we ever owed a debt to Lord Rothermere we owe him a debt for provoking the noble utterance of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I will say, moreover, merely this, in reply to what I consider the most lamentable and mischievous speech which came from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who in his time has rendered great service to the Empire—

Mr. FOOT: It is very kind of you to say so.

Mr. BENN: I say, it is only right that the people of India should know—I say it without any reproach or desire to give pain—that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for but a handful in this House. There are two things which I had hoped
would have been kept entirely outside the realm of controversy to-day. The first is the position of the Viceroy in his task, and the text of the statement which he has issued. As to the Viceroy himself, it is perhaps impertinence for me to say anything after what the Leader of the Opposition has said, but I sat in this House much longer than the Viceroy and I have known him hare, and although my acquaintance with Indian affairs is recent and scanty, yet I am in touch with Indian opinion from day to day, and the Viceroy occupies in India by his character a position of respect and affection which is a real pillar of Empire. As far as the text of the statement is concerned I understand there is no challenge, either by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs or the Leader of the Opposition. The challenge is as to interpretation, as to meanings and opportuneness and questions of that kind.
The second thing I hope may be kept right outside the range of any controversy to-day is the authority and prestige of the Statutory Commission. Everyone in this House knows what sacrifice of time and other great sacrifices have been made by the members of the Commission in pursuing their task, and I should wish to be associated with any tribute paid by the Leader of the Opposition to the work of the Commission which we hope to see concluded to the manifest advantage of this House which appointed them. These two things, I hope, are not coming into the discussion. There has been criticism from the right hon. Gentleman and from Lord Reading in the House of Lords, which I will deal with to the best of my ability; but the two points I have mentioned, at any rate, I hope are lifted outside the realm of controversy.
As regards the Leader of the Opposition, he has been forced to give us a short personal statement relating to something which appeared in some newspaper. I should like to say that as far as any thing he has said touches me every word he has said I can corroborate from my own experience. He never approved the scheme which the Government pursued. Away and remote from his friends he was asked to give a contingent assent; contingent upon the assent of the other party and upon the participa-
tion of the Simon Commission. What did he do? He backed his own Viceroy. The only and crowning blunder of the right hon. Gentleman is loyalty. I am afraid he will never make a great Leader as he seems to have a congenital incapacity for playing a dirty game. Now, the conditions on which the right hon. Gentleman gave his assent were never fulfilled. The conditions were that the Liberal party should assent also, and that the Statutory Commission should participate. Very well, on that I myself interviewed Lord Reading, and in my desire to show the greatest courtesy to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs I inquired of him whether he would like to see me. I am anxious that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should not think I was discourteous to him.
Lord Reading made it perfectly plain from the beginning that he objected to this declaration on the grounds which he stated in another place on Tuesday, and which he placed most clearly before me in letters which he wrote to me and which he has read. From the beginning, Lord Reading has persisted in his opposition to the course which the Government wished to take—persisted on the grounds which he set out—and no one can say they are grounds without weight. In the second place, we learned that the Statutory Commission did not wish to be associated with the issue of any declaration, and, finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, with his colleagues, ex-Secretaries of State for India and others, dissented most strongly from the course which the Government proposed to take. Therefore, we had first, Lord Reading from September onwards objecting; then the Commission not wishing to join in, and then the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on behalf of the Opposition, making the most strenuous objection. That was the situation which faced the Government in October. They wished to do this thing and they were faced with this powerful opposition. Before I say what they did, and why they did it, let me examine for one moment what it was that they actually proposed. They were proposing not to take a new step in policy but to take in effect administrative action, namely, to declare and interpret in unmistakeable terms the existing policy.
The Liberals were against it, the Conservatives were against it, and the Commission were unwilling to participate. What did the Government do? They governed. The Government published on the pre-arranged date the pre-arranged text. That is what they did, and that is the gravamen of the charge which is made against them to-day, and against which it is my duty to defend the Government. Before I say why the Government acted as they did, I want to say one word about the declaration itself. The declaration was a restatement and an interpretation of the Montagu policy. Lord Irwin's statement must stand as it was drafted, and no gloss must be put upon it. It means what it says; no less and no more. The Montagu declaration was embodied in the Preamble of an Act of Parliament, and so long as that Act remains, the Preamble remains. If and when Parliament sees fit to alter the Preamble, it can exercise its sovereign rights, and do so. Inasmuch as this standing policy of the last 12 years has not been challenged. I need not support it by quotations from well-known authorities with which, of course, every student of these matters is familiar. The Montagu policy stands as a cardinal article of faith in British policy towards India.
There we were; that is what we pro posed to do and there was the opposition facing us. We decided to do it. Why? The first reason was this. We were advised to do so by the Viceroy, but let me make this perfectly plain. I should like to exalt the Viceroy in this matter, because he came to England as an ambassador of peace, and he has gone back to India as a messenger of appeasement.
We do not shelter behind the Viceroy. He offered advice and we were free to reject it. We did not reject it, because it agreed with our own convictions. Why did he offer this advice and suggest that this declaration should be made? He said in the first place that doubts had arisen in India as to the sincerity of British parties in the matter of the Montagu policy. Does anybody doubt that of recent years there had grown up a feeling, and that it had constantly been said, that British policy was altering, that the tone was altering, that sympathy was gone, that the days of Mr. Montagu were past. The Viceroy said that these
doubts existed and that for the removal of these doubts it was necessary to issue a clear declaration of existing policy. We did so. The second reason he gave was this. He said, "The Statutory Com mission is going to report, and we want if we can to make a good atmosphere for the Report. We want to have an atmosphere of good will, and that will be better secured if we can clear up the doubts which exist in the minds of Indians who have been assisting the British Government and co-operating with us and helping the work of the Montagu schemes and remove the webs of mistrust which it is necessary to clear away." That was the purpose and these were the reasons alleged by the Viceroy and given to the Cabinet as reasons why we should take this course, and it was because those reasons appeared to us to be good and sound that the Government took the course which they did take.
Now the question arises—and it is a practical question—did we succeed? I do not want to speak about the atmosphere which existed in India. It has been growing steadily worse and worse, and I could give many quotations to show that, but let any hon. Member read the "Times" of the 19th March of this year and he will find an article from the Delhi Correspondent which gives a sad picture of the spirit that existed in India. I myself was faced in my attempt to discharge my duties not merely with crime. That is simple. Crime and incitement to crime do not cause disquiet. They will be put down by this or any other Government, but what was alarming was that responsible opinion did not, somehow, seem to come forward to reprobate crime, and that is a very unhealthy sign. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions about what people think in India, and I would like to answer by giving him one or two quotations from authorities which I think the House will recognise as being good authorities, as to whether the Government has succeeded in the attempt to introduce a better atmosphere preparatory to whatever reforms the Statutory Commission may recommend. First, I take Reuter's telegram of the day following that on which the announcement was made:
The response favourable to the Viceroy's announcement is wider than might have
been expected. The effect of the statement may be summed up as having at a stroke removed the tension from Indian politics and reintroduced a spirit of confidence and trust between Government and governed and delivered a blow at the Independence movement which has hitherto been gaining daily adherence among Congress men.
The "Times of India," not a Swarajist organ, says—
The Imperial Government has made a generous gesture.
and the London "Observer," which is not a Swarajist organ said—[Interruption.] This is not an article by Mr. Garvin. This is from the Delhi Correspondent—
Lord Irwin's pronouncement has trans formed the Indian political scene. The reported indignation of the British Liberals at this announcement is simply not under stood by Europeans and Indians alike.
Finally, let me read this telegram which was addressed to me personally, but which appeared in the newspapers, from the Vice-President of the European Association, Calcutta.
We, the Council of the European Association desire you to convey to His Majesty's Government our firm support of the Viceroy's recent declaration. We consider that such declaration is not ill-timed, and that it clarifies an issue already clear to all competent observers. We consider that the Indian Statutory Commission has not suffered in prestige, but by its work has alone made possible the contemplated conference.
We were told not to do it. We did it—with those results. That is the blunder. That is the grievous interference. That is the mischief that has to be repaired. I will venture to say, now that it is done and the results are manifest, that those results of goodwill and better understanding are appreciated and welcomed in all quarters of the House. Hon. Gentlemen say, "has there been a change?" I have answered the question about the Preamble quite explicitly. The word "policy" can be used in a loose and general way, and using it in the wide sense, I should say there has been a change. There has been a new spirit. A good deal of jocularity has been indulged in at the expense of the message of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I wonder if everybody had read that message. Lord Birkenhead, who is an expert in taste, saw fit to joke at the terms of the message. Well, my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner has an expansive
manner—there is no doubt about that—but when he spoke about "love," I will say, "love" that is "goodwill" is the key-note of British policy. There has been an effort made to make the Indian people realise the position which they occupy in the British Commonwealth, to give them an assurance of equality. I wonder if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite read the letter of Sir Stanley Reed which appeared in the "Times" yesterday. He is not an inexpert novice on India as I am. Sir Stanley Reed wrote in this letter—and nobody's experience of Indian affairs can be greater—
The passion for equality in the eyes of the world is a dominating force in India; and if it is to be for ever denied, India will be driven out of the Empire.
The first change has been a change of spirit. We have got rid of the Birkenhead tone, and also, as people in India do not always understand exactly what values are in this country, I will just remark, in the hope that my words may be passed on, that Lord Birkenhead occupies no official position whatever in the government of this country, and I understand he desires to be regarded as completely detached from British politics. I learn, though I know nothing about it, that he is engaged in some endeavour in the way of trade and commerce. The first change that is made is a change of spirit, but the second change is far more important; it is a change in policy which in reality is the central object of interest in Indian opinion, and that is the Conference. We appointed our own statutory Commission, and we all await its Report with eagerness. Naturally its report will carry vast authority. We await also the Report of the Indian Central Committee, prepared by Sir Sankaran Nair and his colleagues, who came forward at a time of enormous difficulty to assist the Commission. They came forward and undertook a task of great unpopularity among some of their friends, and I should like to bear testimony, if I might, to the work that they did; and when I informed them, at the desire of the Chairman of the Commission, that this Conference was to take place, they went further and said, "We are willing to do our best when our Report is finished to make the further effort of co-operation, as represented by the
Conference, a success." I am grateful to them for that—very grateful.
The real interest in India is, as I said, in this Conference. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked questions about the Conference, and I should like to use careful words, because it is extremely important. Representative Indians will now have the opportunity of coming forward and expounding their views and pressing their solutions, supported by all the arguments and all the conviction which they can bring to bear. They will have direct access, and their views will be heard and considered, not at some remote stage when the opinion of the Cabinet is already declared, but at a stage when everything they say will be heard in time, with an open mind. The Conference is clearly described in the Declaration, which is as follows, if the House will forgive me reading it, because I am aware I must act with the utmost care in so important a matter:
When the Commission and the Indian Central Committee have submitted their Reports and these have been published, and when His Majesty's Government have been able, in consultation with the Government of India, to consider these matters in the light of all the material then available, they will propose to invite representatives of different parties and interests in British India and representatives of the Indian States to meet them, separately or together as circumstances may demand, for the purpose of conference and discussion in regard both to the British-Indian and the All-Indian problems. It will be their earnest hope that by this means it may subsequently prove possible on these grave issues to submit proposals to Parliament which may command a wide measure of general assent.
Let me repeat what I said earlier about the Declaration, as it is commonly called, in reference to the Conference. The words mean what they say. They mean no more, and they mean no less. The Conference is to be fully representative of different parties and interests in British India and of the Indian States. Just one final word. I said that the situation has improved, and so it has.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only asked one question, although the right hon. Gentleman said I had asked several. I asked whether he accepts the interpretation placed by the Nationalist leaders in India upon the meaning of this manifesto.

Mr. BENN: I have answered that question specifically by stating that the
Declaration of the Viceroy stands as it stands, and I must say this. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to cross-question me with a view to making difficulties. [Interruption.]

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. I was responsible, as head of the Government, for these reforms and for this pledge, and I have as deep a sense of responsibility as he has, and I think I am as patriotic as he is. I am asking this question in order to avoid difficulties, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in private—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody believes it!"]—I take no notice of that interruption. In private, for the last several weeks before it ever came to this House, I have been urging these matters, when I thought they would never be a subject of public discussion, and in order to avoid the difficulties which will undoubtedly arise if this interpretation is accepted in India with out a single word of repudiation. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman now whether he accepts this very grave interpretation in a formal document, a formal considered document, by the Indian leaders in regard to this Conference.

Mr. BENN: I should not have said that the right hon. Gentleman was cross-examining me in order to make difficulties, and I apologise to him. I should not have said that. I should have said that the question he was asking might make difficulties, and the answer to him is this. There is the statement. It is explicit and clear. Nothing has to be added and nothing has to be taken from it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I have nothing to add.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If it were clear, it would be clear to these extraordinarily able men who are the Indian leaders. They are all very able. They are asking, and they say at the end—they have practically asked whether they are right in their interpretation. They are practically asking it, and it is perfectly evident that it is not clear to them, because there is one interpretation that has been put here and there is another interpretation that has been placed upon it in India, and the interpretation placed upon it in India is far more important, if I may say so.

Mr. BENN: I have nothing to add, not one single word, to the answer I have given. The Viceroy's statement was very carefully drafted. It has been approved and it is published. I have made it perfectly clear to-day that both in respect of the declaration and of the conference it stands as it stands, and no questions of the right hon. Gentleman will lead me to add one word or take one word away, and I must beg him to regard that as my final answer.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with what Lord Passfield said?

Mr. BENN: I will say no more. I had some other remarks of a general kind to make, but I do not think I can make them, because I do not know that I can succeed, after the cross-questioning that has gone on, in doing what it is my main purpose to do, and that is to justify and explain what the Government thought it their duty to do and to do it in such a way as would not cause any misunderstanding or produce an atmosphere which would place difficulties in the way. I will simply say this, that the problems that face us are very grave. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the gravity of the task that lies ahead. There are obstacles in the path, but there are two ways of regarding obstacles. You can regard them as an excuse for abandoning a pre-determined purpose, or you can regard them as merely exciting a desire to overcome them. It would be a poor friend to the cause of Indian self-government who would deny the existence of real obstacles, both in substance and in time, but I say that it is the conviction, not only of this side but, I believe, of all parts of the House, that these obstacles, real as they are, can be overcome if they are approached in a spirit of sincerity and of good will.

6.0 p.m.

Sir JOHN SIMON: When the Indian Statutory Commission was appointed its members made for themselves a rule, which we have most strictly and faith fully observed, that none of us would take a part of any sort or kind in any public discussion that might arise about Indian affairs until our Report was made and our task was done. My colleagues and I have very anxiously considered whether even in the present circumstances it would not still be better that no one should say any word with the
authority of the Statutory Commission. I think it was Francis Bacon who observed that "an over-speaking judge is no well tuned cymbal," and as we have been endeavouring to discharge, and intend to go on discharging, the duties laid upon us by Parliament, which are really of a semi-judicial character, the House may be quite sure that the few words I am going to say certainly will not promote heat, but are solely designed in great sincerity and soberness to serve the underlying purpose which all of us in this House must put in the front of our minds. If I knew of any part of this House, any bench which is reserved for Commissions, any dock in which they might be put, I would be there at this moment with all my colleagues, for in this as in other matters we are a completely united body. We have come to the conclusion that the Chairman should ask to intervene for a few minutes, not for the purpose of joining in any criticism, in any cross-examination, in any comment, or in any explanation, but simply to make sure—I hope very much to make sure in India—that the reserve which the Indian Commission imposes on itself is in no way misunderstood. Anybody who has any close experience of Indian affairs, anybody who has any real appreciation of the enormous responsibilities which rest on the shoulders of the Viceroy, anybody who can estimate with knowledge the immense forces of mistrust and the opportunities of misunderstanding which it is the duty of all of us to try to dispel in India, will count, as I know this House always will count, any personal question, any little discussion as to whether "A" has acted quite consistently or as to whether "B" has managed a most difficult situation quite cleverly as dust in the balance as compared with the importance of Parliament acting together and in the right spirit in this matter. The Secretary of State—it is due to him that I should say so—was perfectly accurate when he said last week, in answer to a question, that in the matter of those words which have unfortunately raised this controversy, the advice of the Statutory Commission was not sought by the Government. I am not going further into that except to point out—and I hope
that India will observe it—that the Commission is absolutely determined to do nothing which can be construed or misconstrued as the presentation of an interim Report. We are absolutely determined on that.
The Leader of the Opposition has explained what happened. It is enough for me to say that, when for the first time the Commission were informed that the Government contemplated a statement on the subject of the Montagu Declaration, the Commission came to the conclusion that we desired, preserving our wholly independent and judicial position, not to be associated with any such statement, and I so informed the Secretary of State on 24th September. From that moment, any responsibility of the Com mission in the matter ceased. It is, I think, really quite obvious, if the House will reflect, that the determination of the Commission to make no statement and to be associated with no statement which could possibly be construed as dealing with matters within their terms of reference—their decision not to do that prematurely or in advance of the discharge of their duty to Parliament, is the only right decision which they could make. We shall, I hope, early next year report to the authority by which we have been constituted. What is that authority? Let me be perfectly plain. It is exactly two years ago to-morrow since the announcement was made in this House and the other House and in India that this Commission, with the concurrence of all parties, had been constituted. It is a statutory body; it owes its authority to the unanimous vote of both Houses of Parliament and to a Commission from the Sovereign. I may as well make it quite plain that our function as a Commission cannot be either enlarged or diminished by any declaration or statement made by anybody whatever.

Mr. KNIGHT: rose—

Sir J. SIMON: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to express my own opinion.

Mr. KNIGHT: I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is suggesting that this Commission is above the authority of Parliament?

Sir J. SIMON: I should have thought that by this time everybody would know that it was impossible to provoke me on the subject of the Commission. I was observing—and it was, of course, quite elementary—that the Statutory Com mission, acting of course under the terms of an Act of Parliament, has a particular function which nobody seeks, which no body in authority ever has sought either to enlarge or to diminish. Let me just point out this further, so that there shall be no misunderstanding. When the Commission wrote a little time back their letter making the announcement—which I am very glad to feel has met with universal approval both in Britain and India—that we contemplated in our Report dealing with the extremely difficult question of the relations betwen the Indian States and British India, and went on to suggest that after we had reported the Government might think it well—as they do—to appoint a conference including representatives from both the States and—British India, we were not inviting any body to extend our terms of reference, and nobody knows better than the Prime Minister that nobody in the House could extend our terms of reference. We were giving intimation, as our duty was, to the head of the Government that we thought that this course was the course which it would be proper to take, and we were indeed glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman's administration and both political parties in Opposition—and, as we now learn, very large bodies of opinion in India—most warmly suppport that suggestion. If I might clear this point away once for all, I would venture to read to the House one sentence from a letter which I wrote on behalf of the Com mission when we first reached India 18 months ago, and when our position was not as well understood as it is now. It was in the time of the late Government. This was the sentence, and it was, I believe, read to both Houses of Parliament when we were in India, and was the subject of a great deal of comment and interest in India, and it states the true constitutional position:
The Commission is in no sense an instrument of the Government of India or of the British Government, but it enters upon a duty laid upon it by the King Em-
peror as a completely independent and unfettered body.
Every competent person understands that, and that will make it abundantly plain to the House that it was the only proper course for the Commission to take, as they did on 24th September, to explain to the Secretary of State that, whatever the Government might contemplate, it would be far better if the Commission were not associated with it. From that time to this, except indeed, when in common with all other men, we have deplored the prospect that there should be Parliamentary discussion on the subject, we have endeavoured, not without some difficulty, to go on steadily with the business which was put into our charge. Here I desire to make my only other observation. I hope that I may be allowed to say with out giving offence in any quarter of the House, which is not at all my object, that, whether in the opinion of this man or that, the Statutory Commission ought to have been consulted, we do not feel that cur position is such as to require either heated championship or abject apology. We are merely Members of Parliament known to all of you, called upon to discharge a very important task, and endeavouring to discharge it in all sincerity.
I would most earnestly ask Parliament to leave us to continue our work undisturbed without Parliamentary controversy, for after all we have a very heavy piece of work to do, and we at least have found that two years of very intense labour is not at all too long for the purposes of assembling and studying material and of preparing for Parliament such assistance as we can render. The Commission was formed upon a basis of complete Parliamentary agreement. We have worked for two years sustained by that support. I am most grateful for what has been said from the three quarters of the House to-day, for it re assures us that we have that support at this moment. It is owing to that sup port—and, I must be allowed to add, to the unfailing loyalty of all my colleagues—that it is possible to hope that the Commission will be able to turn out useful results. It is not my place to offer assurances or issue pronouncements or to make declarations, but I am sure
that we have proceeded from beginning to end, as India knows well, with an undivided and sincere desire to serve not only India, not only Britain, but both together.
We know nothing within our body of party attachments. We recall with satisfaction that at a very critical moment when we first reached Delhi it was a telegram from the present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Labour Opposition, which did more than anything else to show India that the Statutory Com mission was the authorised agent of Parliament as a whole. So far from thinking that the incidents of the last few days have rendered our work less important, the Commission is confident that one outcome of these events is to make everybody realise that the future constitutional progress of India is one of the most complicated as well as the most important questions in the whole world. I think, further, everybody realises that an honest and sympathetic presentation of facts and considerations by a body which does not claim to be a body of supermen, but a fair specimen of both Houses of Parliament, representative of all political parties, is a contribution which it is worth while for us to endeavour to make, and a duty which the British Parliament desires us to continue to discharge. Of course it is use less to pretend that the incidents leading to this Debate have not for the time being added to our own difficulties, through no fault of our own, but, in fact, these things do not make the slightest difference in the determination of the Commission and of every member of the Commission to finish its task, and nothing that has happened will affect or deflect the completion of our duty or the character of our Report in the slightest degree.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I really do not rise to continue the Debate, but only, if I may dare to express the opinion, to ask, Has it not been carried far enough, not from our point of view, but from the point of view of the Indian situation? I was prompted to get up for another reason also, and that was to thank most sincerely the right hon. and learned Mem-
ber for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). There is no Member of this House who knows more intimately all the moving springs, all the ideas, all the intentions and all the delicacies that have had to be faced during the last few weeks regarding the Indian situation. There is no Member of this House who himself has had to face the kind of difficulties the right hon. and learned Member has had to face. Has he not convinced every hon. Member here, after he has made the speech he has made, and given the advice he has given, that it is worth while that this House should consider it very seriously? I also wish to say, as I am rather involved in this, that the letter to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, written by me to him, bore out exactly the meaning that he attached to it, and that it was perfectly well understod by me before I left for America, at a time when the whole situation was not finished, not worked out, that he was relieved from any obligation which he undertook when he wrote his reply to my letter. There is one other thing. It is part of the controversy, but I am dealing with it not in any controversial spirit, but only to contribute something which may meet the interjection which I overheard a minute ago. This was the position we were in regarding the Declaration. When the papers came before me first, there were two proposals joined. There was the proposal for the Conference and there was the proposal for the Declaration. As regards the proposal for the Conference, the House is still in unity. There is no dispute about that. On the matter of the Declaration, there is not the same unity. That is a very serious—

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: There might be if you would tell us what the Declaration means.

The PRIME MINISTER: —position, a position which has not to be faced lightly. What was the objection urged to the Declaration? I have been trying to charge my memory as hard and as honestly as I can, but I cannot remember that anybody ever suggested that the Declaration raised a new policy or effected any change in the position taken
up by this House of Commons before. Let the House remember that. The Declaration was required because, as my right hon. Friend said, since 1917 and 1919, after 1919, propaganda had been started in India which asked the Indian public to believe that we had departed from our word. The Declaration was necessary, according to the statement made, in order that a better atmosphere and more confidence should be established pending the publication of the Commission's Report. But what was raised is this: Is it expedient that that Declaration should have been made now? That is the whole question. On one side there were very experienced men saying "No," but, as this House knows perfectly well, there was another view pressed very strongly upon us, a very responsible view, that the Declaration was not only expedient but was absolutely essential. It is all very well to raise questions and to put questions, but I put it to any hon. Member or right hon. Member who has been responsible for Government policy, who has had to take advice from those in whom he had confidence and from those who were bearing the burden and heat of the day in the territory of the Government concerned by the Government's decision; the advice was tendered to us in such a way that we accepted it and became responsible for it. I am not sheltering myself behind others; it is the Government's decision. The Government have come to a decision on advice. We came to the decision that it would not be inexpedient, that it would do no harm to the Commission, that it would be beneficial from the point of view of Indian public opinion, and by that decision we stand. I hope that with this explanation, given with great sincerity and with out any idea of raising any further controversy, the House will allow the authorities in India to handle the situation which has been created and, if I may say so, in no way to hamper them in the very difficult task which they are now facing.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: rose—

Mr. KENNEDY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of right to widows' pensions).

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Clause 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Subject to the same conditions as are provided in the case of old age pensions by paragraph (3) of Section 2 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, as amended by sub section (1) of Section 2 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, and the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924, and subject as hereafter provided.
Hon. Members will realise the difficulties under which we necessarily labour in coming down from the discussion of the important issues which have just engaged the attention of the House to an examination of the details of this Bill, but it is the practice of this House to deal with smaller matters in the same spirit of inquiry as they deal with larger ones, and, speaking for my friends and myself, I can say that we shall enter upon this task in no spirit of frivolity, but with a very sincere desire to mitigate, if we cannot remove, the defects which we see in this Bill. The Amendment I have moved is, I venture to say, one of profound importance. To explain how it comes to be framed, I must put some general considerations before the Committee. All will agree that this is a very costly Measure. It involves an immediate rise of £5,000,000 in the national expenditure, and the average annual expenditure over the next six years is to be increased by £8,000,000. A much greater increase is only avoided by the expedient of postponing expenditure if not for posterity at any rate for the successors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are told that for the next 16 years additional expenditure to the tune of nearly £100,000,000 will be involved by this Bill, and four-fifths of that expenditure is attributable to the provisions of Clause 1. Consequently great importance must be attached to any Amendment which materially alters
the provisions of this Clause. The sum of £81,000,000 is large enough to give concern even to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a wealthy country like ours. I assume that before the right hon. Gentleman gave his assent to this Bill and to this Clause in particular, he must have made a careful estimate of the resources which he intends to draw upon, and the liabilities to which he is committed.
Those liabilities are not confined to this Bill, and other liabilities may fall upon the right hon. Gentleman by reason of pledges given to the electors on other subjects in connection with unemployment, education, the coal industry, work or maintenance. Having made this careful survey, I assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to the conclusion that, roughly, the sum of £100,000,000 spread over the next 16 years was the outside limit to which he could, with a due sense of responsibility, afford to commit himself and his colleagues. I am the more confident that that was the procedure followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if he had thought he could afford more than £100,000,000, of which over £80,000,000 is involved in this Clause, he would have asked for more. Therefore, I assume that this is the furthest limit to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could go, or he would have carried out the pledge to give a pension to every widow in the land, of not 10s., but £l a week or more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not do that, no doubt because he felt that in this Bill he had reached the limits of his financial resources. Consequently, I arrive at this point that this Clause is a proposal to incur the expenditure of a sum of money representing the utmost limit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he can afford.
This money is to be provided entirely by the taxpayer, and it is to be distributed among a certain limited number of people. Those people have made no contribution to it, no relatives of theirs have made any contribution, and it is all to be provided by the taxpayers of the country as a whole. The question which would naturally arise in the minds of the taxpayers who are to be called upon to provide this money is, on what principle is the distribution to take place? How
will you decide who are to be the fortunate recipients of this free gift?
The question arises at the very outset, and since this money is to be collected from the whole community for only a section of the community, surely there is one class who should be ruled out, namely, those who do not require the pension, that is, those who are well off enough already to do without it. Surely it would be an extraordinarily unreasonable thing to go to poor people—people who, at any rate, have had a hard struggle to carry on their lives and the lives of their families at the standard to which they have been accustomed—and say, "We are going to ask you to pay additional taxation in order that it may go into the pockets of people who are better off than you are, who have a surplus over and above what they require to keep themselves and their families at the standard to which they have been accustomed, who have not asked for it and who never expected it, and who have done nothing to give them any claim to it." I should have thought that a consideration of that kind would never have been questioned; indeed, I cannot understand hon. Members opposite objecting to it or showing any disagreement with that proposition; in fact, I do not think they could do so if they are to be loyal to their own leader, because it was the present Prime Minister who himself announced that this was the principle upon which his party would proceed. There was an article in the "Daily Herald" on the 25th April, 1928, and it was headed in very large letters:
Great Charter of Social Justice.
Their Need the Only Test for Widows.
That was printed in the largest type available to the "Daily Herald," and it only reflected what the Prime Minister said when he was speaking of widows' pensions, and what he described as the anomalies in the Act of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We will extend the system in principle in such a way that a widow in need shall be the one test to qualify for a pension.
The Prime Minister, with his wide grasp of fundamentals, saw what was forgotten when this Bill was framed, namely, that if you are to make a levy upon the people of this country for the benefit of a minority you must select that minority on some principle that will
appeal to and convince the whole body of the people either on grounds of personal interest or on grounds of common humanity. There can be no question in this case of personal interest to the great body of the taxpayers and there only remains the question of common humanity. I say that the principle of distribution in the Bill is one which is not only not in accordance with common humanity, but actually out rages our sense of justice. I cannot see how it can be defended that you should be willing to take money from the tax payers as a whole and give it to those who are in far better circumstances than many of the taxpayers who have to find the money and who will have to bear this new burden which will be placed upon them. I hope I have so far carried the Committee with me in regard to the two points that I have endeavoured to put before them—firstly, that we are dealing here with a large but limited sum of money available, and, secondly, that, since that money is to be distributed as a free gift, it is essential that it should not be handed over except to those who have need of it.
I come now to the third point that I want to make. This sum of £81,000,000, which is the estimated cost for a period of years of carrying out the provisions of Clause 1, is, if a need test is introduced, too much for the purpose; it is more than is required if it is to be confined to those who pass the conditions named in this Bill. The Clause as framed contains no means test, and, therefore, every case which would be excluded from the operation of the Clause by the fact that the widow in question had already sufficient means of her own would necessarily release a sum of 10s. a week for life for that woman, which could be applied to the case of somebody who did need it. This Amendment is really an acid test of the sincerity of those who say that they would like to extend the provisions of this Bill to a wider circle than that which has been provided as yet, because, by the mere process of adopting the principle of the Prime Minister, we at once set free a sum of money which could be redistributed among people who are in real need, to whom it would be an inestimable boon, and who have been grievously disappointed because they have found
themselves passed over when this Bill was framed. Therefore, I would point out to the Committee that the means test which would be set up by this Amendment may be viewed from two standpoints. It may be viewed as an act of justice to the taxpayers in general; it may also be viewed, if the Committee so desire, as a means for improving the distribution of the money which was voted when we passed the Financial Resolution.
There is one further point. If the Committee is satisfied of the necessity of imposing some means test before these pensions are handed out, what should be the nature of that test? I confess that that to me is a matter of very much less importance than that there should be a test of some kind. Nevertheless, I thought it desirable to put down in an Amendment some definite and specific proposal. I desired to make that proposal upon unimpeachable authority, and, just as I have been able to appeal to the Prime Minister himself as my authority for the principle embodied in this Amendment, so I am now able to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as my authority for the particular method by which I propose to carry that principle into effect. Fortunately, we are not without evidence as to what are the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter. When he was in office in 1924, he had an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation as regards pensions. I am not now going to make any allusion to his failure to bring in a wider scheme of pensions; I am only concerned for the moment with his attitude towards the system of non-contributory pensions which was then all that we had. What was his position with respect to that? Of course, he recognised that to give non-contributory pensions without imposing any means test at all would be altogether unjustifiable. On the other hand, he felt that the means test which was then in existence was rather too severe, and might, indeed, do something to discourage thrift, which he himself has so often commended and recommended. And so, after a careful examination of all the circumstances, he introduced the Old Age Pensions Bill of 1924, the first Clause of which I would like to read to the Committee, and I would ask them, as I read it, to compare it with the
Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. Section 1 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924, says this:
Paragraph (3) of Section 2 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, as amended by Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919 (which contains the statutory condition as to means), shall for all purposes have effect as though after the words 'calculated under this Act' there were inserted the words 'after deducting therefrom such part, if any, there of, but not exceeding in any case thirty-nine pounds, as is derived from any source other than earnings.'
That Act was passed into law in 1924, and it has been the law so far as concerns the means test for non-contributory old age pensions ever since. I know few minds more unchanging than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is one of his strengths, and it is one of his weaknesses; but I think I should be not unfair if I were to assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not changed his mind on this matter since 1924, and I therefore feel certain that he would applaud the Amendment that I have put upon the Paper if he were here to-day, and that he would recognise that it is merely carrying out an idea of which he was the original source and authority.
The Committee, then, will see that in moving this Amendment I am on strong ground. I have behind me the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the two most important Leaders of the party opposite; and I think that on grounds of logic, on grounds of fairness, on grounds of humanity, I ought to have the whole of the Committee with me in support. I would only add this final observation to what I have to say upon this Amendment. The introduction of a further means test into our pensions system is no part of the Conservative policy; our policy is one of a different kind. Our policy was one of insurance, which means that those who contribute have thereby established a legal right to their pensions which is irrespective of their means, and necessitates no inquiries into their private affairs. But when you leave that principle, when you propose to distribute, free, gratis and for nothing, taxation not confined to idle rich, but distributed over the whole population of this country—for all of them, directly or indirectly, must pay their contribu-
tions—then the introduction of a means test is the inevitable accompaniment; and, since the Government have chosen in this Clause to set up a new class of non-contributory pensions, we are bound to demand that they themselves should face up to the inevitable consequences.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think it is a regrettable thing that the first Amendment to be moved should be a restrictive one. It is incomplete enough in all conscience—

7.0 p.m.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: This Amendment will make it possible for those who take the view of the hon. Gentleman to give pensions to people who need them. It will release a certain sum of money which will then he available for other classes of the community which, we say, are in need equally with widows and orphans.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is no reason that the right hon. Gentleman can give that will do away with the effect of this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman who moved it were really anxious to implement the Prime Minister's pledge he would be trying to extend its provisions instead of narrowing them. Because a large number of widows who are in need were not getting pensions under the Act, I think it would be a most retrogressive thing to establish in the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill a means Clause, which is about the most unpopular clause in the Old Age Pensions Act. It is true that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer maintains a means limit inquiry in relation to the Old Age Pensions Act, which he extended, but that is not a contributory scheme at all, and, if the State is giving a free donation, it is entitled to see that the proper people get it. This Bill, in theory at any rate, is an insurance Bill, so in theory this is a Widows' and Orphans' Contributory Pensions Bill. So was the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. That was a Contributory Pensions Bill, but certain widows who never paid a farthing, or whose husbands never paid a farthing, got benefit, provided they had children. They were not asked to undergo a means inquiry; but now, when the present Minister of Health says: "I am going to give a free pension to certain classes of widows," the right hon. Gentleman
says: "You must not be as generous as I was; you must not give pensions that I gave, without a means limit inquiry. These widows have only to have pensions if you have an inquiry into their means."
I know from my own experience, in my constituency, that the most unpopular provision in any Act is that of a means limit inquiry. I am prepared to admit that in a scheme of old age pensions it may be necessary, but under this scheme it would indeed be invidious if you were to distinguish between two widows who might be living next door to each other, and you were to say to one: "Does your son allow you anything? Is your brother giving you anything? Have you had a present of geese or ducks?" That is the sort of inquiry that is made. My colleague, the Lady Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will do well to realise this, seeing that she is supporting the Amendment. They make inquiry into the question of free gifts to pensioners. Is it tolerable that that should occur to a widow who by mischance became a widow before the last Act came into operation? I would sooner have seen the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken try to make more generous pro vision for the widow, and try, if possible, to reduce the age for qualification, and bring in larger classes of persons, than try by the sort of specious argument we have had from his late Parliamentary Secretary, to pretend that he is doing something for them when he is really taking something away.

Mr. JOHN BAKER: As I listened to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, I thought that for once he had adopted a vein of humour. I thought he could surely not be serious in his Amendment, or his arguments, and I would not have been the least surprised if his final remark had been: "I would prefer not to put the Amendment." He told the Committee that he had the support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he did not tell the Committee that he had not the support of the Minister of Health in the last Government. He seemed to me to be paraphrasing speeches made from those benches when we were dealing with another Bill, and he was proposing to
distribute £26,000,000 a year among the wealthy manufacturers and brewers and people of that description. He did not then propose to set up any inquiry as to their need. He told us that you could not separate them; it was a matter of broad general principle, and you ought to deal with the matter on broad lines as a matter of principle. Therefore they were to have an extra pull to help them over difficult times created by their own incompetence. But now, when it comes to distributing money for nothing to people who really need it, there has to be an investigation. [Interruption.] Where is the widow of a working man with children, who is left with means that must be investigated? Why do you not get into touch with your constituents and become informed as to their lives? The condition of the widows in this alleged Christian country is a disgrace to the nation, and I am glad that the Minister of Health is trying to remedy their condition.
I am genuinely sorry to hear gentlemen of the standing of the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) moving a restrictive Amendment of this description and forgetting all his logic of a year ago on behalf of the wealthy brewing concerns, forgetting he wanted to give £1,000,000 of public money with out investigation. Let us have some sort of seriousness if we are to discuss this matter really seriously. I believe in a non-contributory scheme, but I am not asking for that to-night. I believe in a non-contributory scheme because it is the poor people who cannot pay and who are suffering even now; and, when the Minister of Health comes forward trying to relieve their suffering, we get an Amendment like this! I wish the right hon. Member for Edgbaston might get the same type of letter that I get from women who do not want their own case taken up, because they do not give any name or address, but who say: "Please do say something for widows who are in the same position as I am. I was left 22 years ago with five children, and I have had to struggle all this time and have been unable to pay for things." I hope that the Amendment will be with drawn, and that we shall pass the Clause as it stands.

Captain EDEN: If the hon. Member who has just sat down had devoted as
much energy to a study of the Bill and to the Amendment as he has devoted to denouncing us, he might have saved him self the trouble of making a speech which has no reasoned connection with the Amendment on the Paper. I would invite the hon. Member, before opposing us, to consider the exact terms of this Amendment, which was clearly outlined by my right hon. Friend. If I may say it to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), he is under a misapprehension. There is a certain amount of money available under this Bill, and we seek by this Amendment to ensure that that money shall be spent as well as possible. There are two issues which this Amendment raises and they are distinct. The first is: How are we to spend the money available most fairly? If to do that we have to eliminate those who have least need of the pensions, then what is the criterion which we are to apply? I am not, personally, particularly tied to the expression of my right hon. Friend, and I shall support a later Amendment on the Paper, but it is not necessary to start denouncing the means limit. That is not the issue here. Personally, I think this Committee should turn its attention to devising some method by which we could make the best possible use of this money which, as the Bill now stands, will not be done.
It is extraordinary to me that this Bill, as it stands now, should have been brought down to this House without any provision being made to ensure that a widow who, for instance, might be comparatively well off, should not receive a pension, while others who may be in the direst need will receive no aid under the Bill as it stands. I would have hon. Members opposite believe that we are dealing with a certain fixed sum and that we want to see it used in accordance with the test of need. All that we wish to do, and, in this, the Government ought to help us, is to see how best we can find this line which I think has to be drawn. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the terms of the Amendment, perhaps he will cast his eyes down the list and select some other which may suit him better, but let us have no partisan speeches. Let the Government devise some other form of words if they so desire.

Mr. J. BAKER: Mention a single class of widow who will not get a pension under this Bill that you want to see get one.

Captain EDEN: I do not think it is necessary for me to cite a large number of cases. His right hon. Friend on the Front Bench can give him plenty.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I want to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend from the Front Opposition Bench on this Amendment. As my hon. and gallant Friend says, we are not wedded to this form of investigation as to means. The right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) has pointed out that it is no part of Conservative policy to introduce restrictions. When you diverge from that principle you get back to the principle which used to exist in the Old Age Pensions Act, that in order to give pensions to the most deserving people you have to devise some way of finding out who are the most deserving people. We still do not know of any particular reason why the age of 55, for example, should be adopted. It is a big assumption to say that every widow after 55 automatically requires a pension and that any widow under 55 should be excluded. It is in no restrictive sense that my right hon. Friend has brought forward the Amendment. It is restrictive only so far as the people are concerned whose needs are sufficient to carry on without the benefits of this pension, as it is called, but which is really a free gift coming to them through this Bill.
I have always made my own position perfectly clear, that there should not be any kind of penalisation of thrifty people and that pensions schemes should exist in such a form that the people who contribute to them should get their pensions as a right. There is no question of right about the first Clause of this Bill. It is a question of the Minister's discretion. It is a question as to whether the Minister thinks that a certain per son at a certain age may or may not be in an insurable occupation. While possibly that might be the ground for giving a pension it cannot in any circumstances in the ordinary legal sense of the word be described as the right of giving a pension. In this Clause we are doing something which the Minister deplored at an earlier stage. On the
Second Reading of the Bill he said how terribly complicated were all these things with regard to the social services; how in addition we have National Health Insurance, how we have Unemployment Insurance benefits and so on, and how difficult it is for people to know their rights and obligations of any particular scheme. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman is making confusion worse confounded by grafting a non-contributory Clause on to a Contributory Act. That is not going to make it any easier for those unfortunate widows who are in distressed circumstances and with whom we all would sympathise. All Members of Parliament have correspondents who write to them. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker) has correspondents who write to him any more or less than my constitutents. Therefore, we do know all about the position. We do not have to talk about this sort of thing at every stage of a Bill; we take it for granted. I do not suppose that at this stage I should be in order in discussing the question of contributory or non-contributory pensions at all. According to the Minister:
The adoption of this scheme will bring within the pensions scheme as a whole all those women whose husbands could not participate, because they were over 70 when the Act went into operation, or because they died before the appointed day in the 1925 Act. This is the major principle of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1929; cols. 369–70, Vol. 231.]
I cannot understand the position because it is simply not true. This Clause does not bring in all those women whose husbands died before the appointed day at all. What we want to do by our Amendment is to bring in a far larger number of those who really need these pensions than the right hon. Gentleman is doing. We are really enlarging the scope of the Measure for the benefit of the people who really require pensions. I should like an explanation of what the right hon. Gentle man meant when he said that all those women whose husbands died before 1925 should come in under the Bill. I do not think that there is any justification what ever for that statement. The anomaly with regard to the elderly pre-Act widow is admitted. No one is going to say that there has not been an anomaly, but this anomaly is the automatic result of
introducing any Measure through Parliament where you have to have a date from which you have to start. You cannot help that. To transfer that particular anomaly to an age limit does not change the fact that it is an anomaly; you merely change from a date anomaly to an age anomaly. We hate the idea that you should have a test of income; that there should be such a departure from the principle of the Bill which we introduced. If you look at this Clause which applies to a certain category of widows, it means that a widow whose husband died so long ago that there is some difficulty in getting evidence about his status will, though she may have become wealthy herself or her children have become wealthy and have made her an allowance, be entitled to come in under this Bill and apparently will receive the 10s. a week when there is really no conceivable justification for giving it to her. A widow, say of the age of 54, or a woman who is not a widow at all—a spinster—will not come in under the scheme. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] No, not at present but we hope that she will before long. That is why we say that if you are going to distribute this largesse there is some justification for extending the benefits of the Measure to these women.

An HON. MEMBER: Does the hon. and gallant Member consider that 10s. a week is largesse?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member can look up the word in the dictionary just as well as I can and he will see an adequate description which will cover even the sum of 1d. in certain circumstances. I would like to put it to the Minister, in case he may have overlooked the fact, that we are not doing anything very contrary to what his party thought proper when the original Bill was going through Parliament. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that in 1924 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted these particular standards for the means test of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the present Prime Minister made it quite clear during the Election that the question of need was going to be one of the tests for pensions. When the 1925 Act was going through Parliament Mr. Williams, then a Member of this House, brought forward an Amendment during the Committee stage on the 14th July of that
year to extend the pension of 10s. to the childless widow of 50. The childless widow of 50 under that Amendment was going to get a pension calculated not in the same way as we propose here but in a way which we might discuss later on if the principle of the Amendment is accepted, namely in the same way as the need pensions under Royal Warrant for War pensions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston at that time was unable to accept the Amendment on two grounds. The first was that there was no money available and the second ground was that it was against the contributory principle. Neither of these grounds are applicable to the Minister to-day, because he is finding something like £81,000,000 for this particular service. He cannot say he has no money and he cannot stand firmly on the fact that it does not come within the four corners of the Contributory Pensions scheme because he does not hold with that view.
Therefore, the two grounds on which my right hon. Friend resisted that particular Amendment are not available to the right hon. Gentleman now. I find that his own party, including the Prime Minister, voted in the Lobby in support of that Amendment. I assume that they thought the childless widow of 50 ought to get a pension and that she should be limited by a means qualification of the same kind as that contained in the War Pensions Warrant. That seems to be a very good reason for supporting the same principle when it is proposed from this side of the House and when the two hindrances in 1925 are no longer operative. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way carefully to consider this point. What we want to do is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister says is the object of his Bill. If he will turn to the OFFICIAL REPORT when the Report stage of the Money Resolution was under discussion he will see that he said:
What we have tried to do with the money available is to spend it as wisely as possible, in order to assist the largest number of the most needy section of the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1929; col. 780, Vol. 231.]
That is exactly what we are asking him to do, to make sure that it goes to the most needy by eliminating from the provisions of Clause 1 those widows who have sufficient means of their own.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I was very surprised at the speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker). I should have thought that he would have welcomed the chance, whether he agreed with the principles of the right hon. Gentleman or not, of discussing the very vital question of the widow in need. I do not agree with the method adopted by the hon. Gentleman, but I think it is obvious that there are three ways of meeting the case of the widow in need. You can decide to have a non-contributory insurance scheme bringing in all widows, including the widows in need, or you may, as the right hon. Gentleman does in his Amendment, bring in a restrictive and limiting Amendment on a definite scale, or you may decide to enlarge the method of voluntary contributions, bringing in all such widows whether of the insurable class or the non-insurable class. Surely the hon. Member for Bilston need not display any heat about the matter because he and his party are pledged on this very basis. The Prime Minister in a speech to a Labour women's conference at Buxton shortly before the General Election—a gathering of some thousand Labour women who were going to every constituency in Great Britain to speak on the authority of the Prime Minister—laid it down that in his opinion every widow in need should have a pension. Therefore I do not understand the heat shown on the other side at the attempt that is being made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) to amend this Clause. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am patronising him in the least. Nobody could patronise the right hon. Gentleman on the drafting either of Bills or of Amendments. He is incomparable. The Committee is under a debt of gratitude to him for bringing forward an Amendment to raise this issue at this early stage, and the Minister of Health ought to be gratified. He will remember that I pursued the Secretary of State for Scotland and himself on this matter, in the later days of July. I put the follow-question:
MR. ERNEST BROWN asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any estimates has been made of the number of widows in Scotland at present in need but not in receipt of pensions; and, if so, what is the total, together with the estimated cost of
including them in the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?
I used the Prime Minister's own phrase: The Secretary of State replied:
MR. ADAMSON: No estimate of the nature referred to in the first part of the question has been made, and I accordingly regret that the information desired in the second part is not available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1929; col. 1099, Vol. 230.]
It was quite, obvious that the Prime Minister and his advisers on the pensions question were willing to pledge them selves to give something the nature and scope of which they did not understand, when the pledge was made. I asked the same question of the Minister of Health, and the answer I received from him was even more interesting but not quite so canny or cautious as that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that no estimate had been made on this matter, and he was afraid that it was hardly capable of estimation and would involve the investigation of the material circumstances of all widows who claimed to fall within the class referred to. That is a very instructive and interesting answer both for the Committee and the country. Here we have a definite statement from the Minister of Health that his own Prime Minister made a pledge at the Election, although he did not understand the implications, that he had not worked it out, and that he had no knowledge of the scope of it. Now, we have the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) coming forward with a considered Amendment which provides a basis for giving a test for the women in need. I do not agree with the method of it, but the subject is worthy of more than one Debate and more than one Amendment in the course of our discussions in Committee. I will trouble the Committee with an answer which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary, when I asked if she could state the estimated number of widows in England and Wales on the 30th June, 1929, and the number of such who were under 65 years of age. This is the reply:
Miss LAWRENCE: The information desired is not available. The number of women in England and Wales described as widows in the 1921 Census was approximately 1,622,000, of whom about 918,000 were under age 65. It should, however, be noted that these figures include about
135,000 War Widows."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1929; col. 937, Vol. 230.]
Therefore, the Minister is legislating in the dark. He is legislating under the shadow of a pledge made by his own Prime Minister, and it may well be that this will have an important effect in successive pensions Bills, because the Minister says that this only a preliminary instalment of Government policy. There is a great deal of force in the argument that the 500,000 widows chosen by the methods of this Bill, to which the Amendment offers an alternative, may turn out to be not the most needy widows at all. In support of my argument, let me read from a speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health last Friday. She said that Paragraph (b) dealing with the Financial Resolution was a highly speculative item. We are now dealing, on the admission of the Minister, with a highly speculative item. She said:
This is a most highly speculative item as indeed have been all the items under all the Old Age Pensions Acts from 1908 to 1924. Most of these people I think would have been people who, at the age of 70, would have received their pensions under the non-contributory Act, but you cannot really say. One of the surprises of the Department is the extraordinary extent to which persons even in quite an advanced age, manage to keep their heads above water by their own exertions and disqualify themselves from the operations of the non-contributory Measure. They are most surprising cases.
This is my answer to the hon. Member for Bilston, and his heat:
They are in the bulk very distressing cases. When these pensions were refused, I often felt that the country was simply penalising the man for his exceptional energy and enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1929; col. 501, Vol. 231.] I think the House will welcome that statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. I conceive it to be the duty of this Committee closely and carefully to examine every reasonable alternative, such as the present Amendment, in order to see whether or not, inside the limits of the Financial Resolution, this Committee can devise any constructive alter native to the admittedly imperfect and speculative finance in the Bill. I do not accept this particular form of Amendment, because we have other Amendments on the Order Paper, but there is undoubtedly great force in the case put by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston, and I hope that we shall have a very detailed answer from the Minister.

Mr. MARCH: I cannot understand what hon. Members opposite try to make us believe, or try to make us think, when they say that they have no particular favour towards the means test, and yet the first thing they do is to bring for ward a portion of the Old Age Pensions Act as a means test. Until 1924, the interrogatories that people had to go through as to whether they had any money, or whether they were given any assistance from their friends, was some thing terrible. Even after 1924, when 15s. was allowed as a thrift recognition, a man could only earn 10s. If he earned 10s. 2d. he lost 2s. on his old age pension. We do not want any more restrictive means tests of that character. Hon. Members should look at this Bill not in one Clause only, but in all its reservations, and they will see that there will not be much fear of many people slip ping through and getting a 10s. pension for life, without having paid something for it. They have been paying all this time for the people who have had the 10s. pension.
We are told that some wealthy people may get a 10s. pension. What do hon. Members think the Minister and his officers will be doing? The people who apply for pensions will have to fill up and sign forms and get witnesses to prove the accuracy of their statements, and if their statements are proved to be inaccurate, there will be the courts, which have before now taken action against people in regard to old age pensions. If there should happen to be a wealthy widow who manages to get a pension of 10s. a week for life, surely hon. Members would not desire to penalise other people who may be getting the pension. If a person gets the pension and she is not entitled to it, action can be taken. Some people think that the persons themselves have to make out their need, but I understand from the reservations that the need will be considered by those who are dispensing the pension. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] If a millionaire widow applies for a pension of 10s. a week, she will have some cheek.

Viscountess ASTOR: Or a trade union leader's widow.

Mr. MARCH: A trade union leader who may have been getting a few thousands a year. They have to make
out their statement of income for the year under the Old Age Pensions Act, and if they do get £2,000 or £3,000 a year or even £100 or £200 a week and they have the audacity to go to a post office and fill up a form, and take someone with them as witness in order that they may get a pension of 10s. a week, they will deserve it. Many widows of that description would scorn the action. I have more faith in the people who have got money, to believe that they would spend their own money rather than go to the post office or anywhere else to get 10s. a week. The party opposite have kept more widows off pensions than they have taken in, and we are desirous of improving the many poor widows who have been left out. I am only sorry that the Minister has not been able to go far enough and take in all the widows in need; but on that ground I am not going to restrict those who are going to get the pension. This is the first step taken by the Minister, and further provision will be made for others. Hon. Members opposite would like to stop the lot, but we would not.

Viscountess ASTOR: We do not.

Sir BASIL PETO: Hon. Members opposite consider it is a very popular cry to give unlimited doles to everybody. On the present occasion they have abandoned the contributory principle, and when we desire to take steps to see that those who are to get pensions for nothing shall be those who need them most, we are told that we are trying to deprive all widows of their pensions. The Government are trying to bring in half a million widows, some of whose husbands may have died 30 or 40 years ago and could never have contributed anything towards the pension. The answer to that has been: "You did it." Because my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston thought it necessary in order to ease off the starting of the great new Act of 1925, which had to start, like any other Act of Parliament, on a given day, in the case of a comparatively small number of widows who had children dependent upon them and therefore could only be a charge upon the Fund for a short time until they passed school age; that is made the excuse for the proposals in the present Bill. Because we did that, the present Minister of Health seeks to extend the wholly non-contributory prin-
ciple to cover not necessarily all the widows in need, but a certain section of half-a-million widows. I think we are amply entitled to say that, if you are going to deal with the strictly limited amount of money which we have voted in this House for this purpose, there is an obligation on Members of the Committee to see that it is spent in the best manner possible, but frankly I have another reason for wishing to see this provision limited to widows who are in such a financial position that they would have been entitled to pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908–24. The first Clause of this Bill alone will cost £81,500,000 out of the £98,500,000 that the Bill is estimated to cost, and, as it is admitted that this is only a first start and something to go on with in the programme of right hon. Members opposite who constitute the present Government, I am not at all convinced that by spending public money on a non-contributory basis to this extent, we are not doing a great deal more harm to the employment of the people of this country, which is the main urgent necessity, than we are doing good to the recipients of this national largesse.
I will put one final point, which to a certain extent has been made by other speakers. It has been very properly pointed out from these benches that this provision is dealing with a very limited class of people, namely, widows, but I am not convinced that even in logic there is any reason for placing a woman who has been married and who, by hypothesis, has had a man to work for her for a considerable part of her life before she became a widow, in an exceptional position simply for that reason, apart from the fact of whether she has had a family to bring up, or needy circumstances to contend with, or anything of that kind. I am convinced, if we were to seek for the most needy women, that we should not find more among the widow class than among those who have never had anyone to work for them and have had to work for themselves.
We are told that we are seeking to restrict the benevolence of the present Government, but we say, "Not at all. We are dealing with a certain sum of money, and we are convinced that this Clause has never been thought out."
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was considering the whole question of the social services of the country, and he suggested that he was bringing for ward something to pay something on account of the election pledges of the party opposite. He is adopting a party cry. It would be as well to adopt the term "Woman" as the term "widow." Proverbially, the term "Widow" suggests someone with children, someone who has had someone to support her, and who has lost the head of the family, and so forth. There is nothing in the Clause which says so. When my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) brought in his proposal, he did it deliberately to meet the case of those who found themselves suddenly deprived of the head of the family. There was a definite need there, though not in the same sense as there is in this Amendment. It is quite clear that a widow with children on her hands must be in need of subsistence, and there is no need to impose any test. Hon.
Members from this side of the House have, from the time the original Old Age Pension Act was introduced, been opposed to the pension which is only granted to those who make no provision for themselves and involves inquiry and inquisition into their needs.
It is not our fault that we have to put down this Amendment; it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. He admits that he grafts on to a contributory scheme some thing which has nothing to do with the title of the Bill or the principle of the main Act which he is amending by this Bill, and we have to bring in something of this kind, because he is bringing in a large class of persons for whom no contribution has been made, and who have no right to be brought into the scheme of the Act which we passed in 1925. I have no hesitation from the one point of view or the other in supporting this Amendment which, if it is adopted by the Committee, will mould this Bill into something infinitely more useful to the most needy portion of the population.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will not attempt to enter into the interesting question of who is needier, the widow or spinster. We are not considering the hard lot of the spinster, but whether a certain class of pre-Act widows shall be entitled to pensions or not. The Amend-
ment is an attempt to see that the jam provided goes all over the bread and butter, and, if I believed that that would be the effect of it, I should honestly support it. I am bound to say, however, that I personally, and I think all Members on this side of the House, are very much against all this imposition of means tests. In all legislation we are gradually moving away from it. Even in the 1925 Act it was never suggested that there should be an inquisition into the means of widows with children, and we are giving a pension irrespective of incomes under the 1925 Act. I should deplore the fact if the Committee took such a retrospective step.
I believe there is no Act or restriction that Members come across that causes more heartburnings than the limit on Old Age Pensions, and it may well be that, within your net, if you give pensions to pre-Act widows, you may get a widow here or there who has bettered her position. In the last two years, we have seen two girls in the insurable class, one of whom is the daughter of a reigning King, and the other of whom is the Queen or Princess of an Eastern state. But after all when Parliament allowed Members of Parliament to receive £400 a year, there was no distinction between those who wanted it and those who did not. That £400 a year is a boon to many on these benches and on the benches opposite. It is not needed by many on these benches and on those benches, but I should deplore it if before a Member of Parliament received his £400 a year, he had to fill a form stating exactly the state of his accounts when he made his application. I consider this Amendment reactionary and retrogressive, because it sets its face against the tendency of legislation. I believe the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) put his finger on the point. The best way of showing that a widow has a claim to a pension is to link her up with the voluntary scheme.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. PALMER: If you detect the motive of this Amendment it will be very easy to decide that the one thing for the Committee to do is to reject it. The case has been admitted to be made out as regards the need, but, if you examine the case underlying the Amendment, it can only impose limitations and rule people out of benefit who should be properly en titled to it. This class of pre-Act widows is a very restricted class after all, for,
though it numbers at the present time something like half a million, it must in the nature of things be a diminishing class, and I suggest that it does no damage to the contributory basis of the Act because a good many pre-Act widows whose husbands did not live to 70 would have been insured previously, and it has been recognised more than once that your Old Age Pension Act starts where the National Insurance contributions cease, and contributions could be deemed to have been paid even in respect to that very large portion of the class provided for in this Act which we call pre-Act widows.
The argument has been made that unless you impose a means limit there is a danger of someone who has plenty of money availing herself of the provisions of this Bill and taking the meagre pension provided under it. I cannot see many rich widows going through the ordinary paraphernalia that is required by the Bill for qualifying for this pension, even in the absence of a means limit. I say, further, that if it were true that, of these half-million pre-Act widows who are to be brought in, a few were sufficiently void of conscience as to take something which obviously was not intended for them, I would sooner see the nation suffer that than that any necessitous widow should be left out. If there be any truth or any sincerity in the reasons for this Amendment which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite, then the Amendment must be, as has been contended all the time in the speeches to which we have listened, an Amendment to widen the scheme and increase the benefit and bring more people in. I suggest that the Amendment is not consistent with that purpose which has been spoken of, be cause if hon. Members opposite could by any possible means get the Committee to adopt an Amendment like this, then not more people but less people would be brought in. One does not need to be a very keen politician to see that this is merely a method of scoring a point against the Government for carrying out to the best of their ability, and to the extent which was possible, a very substantial instalment of the promise made that this particular class, who were so ruthlessly left out of the 1925 Act, should at the first possible opportunity, in this House and in this new Parliament, be brought in.
I hope the Committee will not for one moment be misled by the effect which the introduction of this Amendment into the Bill would have. We all deprecate an inquisition and the imposition of a means limit, even in the Old Age Pensions Act itself, and in these days I think we should not go back and seek to reintroduce it. I would sooner suffer the rich widow coming in and abusing the fund by taking something out of the Fund which obviously was not in tended for her, than I would lend a moment's though or support to an amendment which, in operation, could only be restrictive all the time. I therefore oppose the Amendment.

Captain GUNSTON: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) who has just sat down, has said that he would rather that the rich widow should come into the scheme than that somebody should be left out. I agree with him absolutely; but may I put this point to him: Would he rather that this Bill should stand as it is, and that necessitous women should be left out, because that is the effect of this Bill at the present moment?

Mr. PALMER: That is another matter.

Captain GUNSTON: The hon. Member made a statement with which many of us will agree, namely, that he does not like a means limit clause. We all agree with him; but the Prime Minister did lay down that the only test should be the test of necessity. If the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health would suggest words which will enable us to include these necessitous people who are left out, then I believe that my right hon. Friend would at once withdraw this Amendment.
I would like, if I may, to turn for a moment to a criticism made by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Hore-Belisha). He seemed to suggest—and his criticism is very much the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Health—that this Act is only extending the class which was specially selected by my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Health (Mr. Chamberlain). The Minister of Health made that statement on Friday, but on Monday night he was not quite his usual self, and, forgetting what he had previously said, that he was
extending our Act, he taunted us with a desire to restrict social services—if I may say so, a very unwise speech for any Minister to make who wants to get business through after 11 o'clock at night. His taunts made it necessary for us to answer them, and at one time it looked very likely that we would be up all night, until the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, in her charming way, intervened and sent us home very happy, if a little resentful of what had been said by the Minister of Health.
When the hon. Member for Plymouth and the Minister of Health made the claim that this Bill extends a class which had been specially selected, I think they were neglectful of the whole idea of the 1925 Act. The 1925 Act was an insurance Act. It is quite true that we had an exception, and that exception was the widows and children; but why was that exception made? The exception was made that a fatherless child should not suffer in competition with a child whose father was alive, or with a post-Act widow. Our exception was made, to a great extent, to help the fatherless children. It is quite true to say that under our Insurance Act many classes were left out.

Mr. PALMER: Wait until we bring in the men.

Captain GUNSTON: Many classes were left out which could not be included in the Act.

Mr. PALMER: Why?

Captain GUNSTON: Because as yet nobody has been able to frame an insurance scheme to bring in these people. The hon. Lady and her colleagues have not been able to frame such a scheme; and though it might not have been any comfort to a person whose husband had been a non-contributor, and who could not benefit, at any rate it was an intelligible answer. But how are you going to explain to a person who will not benefit under this Bill when you can no longer say that it is an Insurance Act? If you are going to give this £100,000,000 from the State in 16 years, as a free gift, how are you going to defend your action to the person who is not going to benefit? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, in a speech, in reply to the
hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), said, on Monday night:
We are dealing with widows' pensions, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell me how that sum of £100,000,000 can be better spent on pensions, I shall be glad to listen to his views."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1929; col. 780, Vol. 231.]
That is exactly what we are doing this evening. By this Amendment we seek to make it more possible for the Minister to distribute this money fairly. We recognise that the House of Commons has, by giving this Bill a Second Reading, decided to give £100,000,000 of State money, and we are not quarrelling with that decision; though, in passing, we notice that the Minister of Health says that £100,000,000 is no burden on industry. What wonderful teaching to come from the Leeds School of Economics! He said that this money would be distributed on the principle laid down by the Prime Minister. Does the hon. Lady really think that you can justify refusing a pension to a post-Act widow who may be in need and who is not insured, when you give it to a pre-Act widow who is not in need? If you are going to distribute this money according to the Prime Minister's speech, that is to say, according to need, have you any right to say that only the widow shall get it, and the spinster must not? What about the woman who perhaps has refused matrimony to look after her sick father? When you are giving this money, have you any right to refuse this free gift of the State to her? Will the hon. Lady go down to her constituency and say: "It is quite right to give this money to Mrs. Jones, though she has come into a comfortable little property since her husband died, but we will not give it to Miss Brown, who has had to look after an invalid father, or perhaps an epileptic mother"? She cannot justify it, and she cannot comfort herself once she has got away from the insurance principle.

Mr. BROMLEY: I should like to ask the hon. Member to tell the Committee whether he has any statistics of the number of working-class widows who have come into comfortable properties after their husband's death.

Captain GUNSTON: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has been trying to get some figures from the Minister of
Health, but he has not yet succeeded in doing so.

Mr. BROMLEY: Millions of them!

Captain GUNSTON: Hon. Members comfort themselves, I think, on very unsafe ground if they think that there are not many of these cases in the country. They may think that there are only a few hard cases left out to-day, but when the searchlights of these Acts are turned on the country they will find that there will be hundreds to-morrow and thousands the day after.

Mr. BROMLEY: And millions next week.

Captain GUNSTON: I am afraid I am not trained in law like my right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) who is sitting in front of me. I am afraid that however hard I worked and however hard I studied it would be quite impossible for me to understand some of the drafting of this Bill. I wish I had the facility of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) in understanding Parliamentary Bills, and the complicated procedure of this ancient House. Whereas I take a light novel to bed, he takes Erskine May to send him to sleep. I have asked his advice, and I understand that it is very hard to bring in by Amendment of this Bill the classes which are left out, such as smallholders, and shopkeepers, but I think this Amendment—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that there is an Amendment before the Committee, and there are certain conditions implied in that Amendment; and the conditions of that Amendment and the proposals of the Government are the only matters under discussion.

Captain GUNSTON: I was going to say that I knew I was out of order—

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member knew that he was out of order he should not have persisted.

Captain GUNSTON: I mean I should be out of order if I wanted to bring in those classes, but I was not seeking to bring in those classes. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, if you had given me a little more time, was that I thought it would be quite proper to discuss the
necessitous widow of the smallholder or shopkeeper who would come in under our Amendment. That was our point. I hope you will not think that I was wilfully transgressing. I was going to explain.
I do not imagine that I shall get much sympathy from hon. Gentlemen opposite if I give the Committee the instance of the widow of a small shopkeeper, because hon. Members opposite look upon small shopkeepers as part of the capitalist system. May I put the case of the widow of a smallholder who, whilst he was alive, worked for a long time but did not make much money in performing that most necessary of social operations, producing food for the people of this country. Her husband dies and she carries on, but through no fault of her own she falls on bad times. There is such an event as the dumping of German bounty-fed wheat into this country which sends her out of existence. She might appeal to her local Member who puts a question to the Minister of Agriculture and gets no answer. But having read the election pledges of the Socialist party and thinking no doubt that they are to be honoured by this Bill she thinks she is going to get a pension, but when it is too late finds that "at the earliest moment" in the Socialist vocabulary means step by step; the inevitability of gradualness. This woman, the widow of a smallholder produces food for the country for many years; she has rendered a social service—

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that there is an Amendment before the Committee, and I do not think the smallholder is included in it.

Captain GUNSTON: Of course I bow to your ruling. I will not mention the unfortunate lady any more. What about the widow of a man who was at one time employed, perhaps by a brewery company, in looking after a small inn. The widow of that man will get a pension but the other widow I have mentioned will not. Can hon. Members opposite really justify a free gift of the State to the widow of a man who sold drink and refuse it to the widow of a man who produced food? I appeal to the hon. Lady opposite. No doubt she wants to carry out her election pledges; she wants this money to go to the people who are in
need. When the Conservative party were in office we listened to her many appeals for humanity and better treatment, but to-night it is not the case of judging them by their words but by their actions, and by their actions we shall be able to judge whether the Socialist party really mean to give money to people who are really in need.

Mr. LOUTS SMITH: I desire to intervene only for a moment or two. We on this side of the House are not unmindful of the needs of the widow and fatherless child. The widow was first included in the Act of 1925, and we certainly had in mind during the last year or two the possibility and the desirability of removing any anomalies that might exist in that Act; but we do say that insurance should be on a contributory basis. Personally, I much dislike the word "dole," and I feel that throughout the country there is a growing wish that those who receive any help or maintenance should feel that they receive it as a right and not as a charity. We are going through very difficult times and should be most careful not to add to the load which industry has to carry and which the actual worker in our factories has to carry. If women who are widows receive this £26 per year when they do not need it, it is adding a load on those who are actually working, and this Amendment is intended to remove that. It has been said by an hon. Member opposite that he would rather see a wealthy widow have the £26 per year than have any means test included in the Bill.
I wonder whether hon. Members realise what an outcry there would be in the country if many widows, possibly with £1,000 a year income, were to take this £26 as a little additional pin money when they had the opportunity. What opinion would a hard-working typist, earning her £2 per week, or a woman in a factory earning £2 or £3 per week, have if she knew that an Act of Parliament of this country allowed a widow with an income of £1,000 per year the opportunity of taking this £26 in addition? There would be a tremendous outcry in the country, and it is for that reason among others that we are moving this Amendment. We are not wishful to have a means limit in any such Bill but, owing to the fact that we are now considering an insurance
Bill which is not on a contributory basis, it is absolutely necessary to include a means limit otherwise we should have most inequitable circumstances arising. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must view this Amendment with some desire to support it. I noticed with interest some words which he used only a few days ago at Whitfield's Tabernacle. He said:
The most dangerous and most menacing feature of the present time was a desire to get something for nothing. Unless social reform develops a greater sense of individual responsibility our social reform measures will never establish a co-operative Common wealth but will establish a pauper State.
Those are the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Amendment goes in the direction in which he wishes to lead this nation. In the present difficult times, the millions of hard working men who are at work—and there are many more at work to-day than ever in this country—when they realise that this Bill brings an added load of £80,000,000 to £100,000,000 on to their shoulders, because it is the actual production of the country which has to carry it, will feel, as I feel, that it is necessary to have some restriction in this Clause which will prevent any of those obtaining assistance who are actually not in need. The Amendment aims at giving assistance merely where there is need and of preventing the unnecessary expenditure of public money.

Mr. LEIF JONES: While I am very anxious that this Bill should pass and do not wish to make any unnecessary speeches, I think I ought to explain why I am not going to vote for this Amendment. We ought to be very careful in spending public money and in apportioning a given sum it is necessary that we should give it where it is needed. There fore a somewhat plausible case was made out by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech, but I am bound to say that we are here dealing with a very trifling matter. A challenge has been made from the other side as to how many cases there are in which rich widows are likely to receive pensions. No answer has been given to that question and none can be given because nobody knows. It is quite clear, however, that only in very rare cases indeed is a pension likely to be given to a person who does not need it. The whole Debate in that respect has
been very unreal because the speeches from this side of the Committee seemed to imply that a large number of people were going to be kept out of pensions owing to the fact that these richer people were not excluded.
The reason why I cannot vote for this Amendment is that while I do not want to give pensions to people who do not require them, I regard the means limit as absolutely intolerable. It is quite useless to think that you are going to impose a limitation by means of a scrutiny of the incomes of the recipients. It has been tried, and the country simply will not stand it, and quite rightly so. It is an intolerable way in which to approach the question. We have had to approach it ourselves in that way. I was in the House when the system of payment of Members was established, and if ever there was a case for a means limit it was in regard to that payment. Many Members of this House did not need £400 a year at all, yet, when the proposal was made that there should be a distinction, and that only those Members should receive the payment who were in need of it or who put forward a claim to it, the mere suggestion was sufficient to bring about the rejection of any such proposal. So it is in all these case cases, and I say to all who desire to limit expenditure and to see that the money is usefully employed, that we have to find some other means of imposing a limit than that of calling upon recipients to expose all their private affairs and go through all the long inquiry which has been found necessary in such cases. That method is out of touch with the spirit of the age, and is merely a form of class distinction. I think it would be much better to allow the Clause to go through as it stands and to trust to the good sense and honour of the people. The conditions of obtaining the pension are not so easy that claims are going to be made by rich people who do not require a pension, and the number of cases involved, as I say, will be trifling.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I am afraid that hon. Members opposite have not quite grasped what we mean by the Amendment. I do not, however, accuse them of lack of perception, because possibly we have not presented the case quite as plainly as we might have done. The point which we have to consider is that the Minister of Health, desiring to
remove some of the anomalies of the 1925 Act, approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see how much money could be spared. I have sufficient faith in the financial probity and orthodoxy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know that he would not grant any money which the country could not afford. He found that, in this particular case, he could give in 16 years about £98,000,000, and it was then the task of the Minister to allocate that money to the best advantage. The Minister found that the Prime Minister had given a pledge that, first of all, he would like to have all widows in need included. But the Minister found that he had no criterion and no statistics on which to go on in regard to those widows. He was in the position, however, that he had £98,000,000 to spend, and he decided to extend these provisions until in time he could bring in about 500,000, and that would get rid of the money—thus doing away with the idea of the Prime Minister that the principal claim should be need. We are anxious to help the Government. We know they are limited by the terms of the Financial Resolution to £98,000,000. That money has been voted, and all that we are anxious for is that it should be spent to the best advantage. We are not asking that one penny piece should be taken from that sum, and we have not the power to add one penny piece to it. We want to work with hon. Members opposite in seeing that that money, which is all that the country at present can afford according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is spent to the best advantage.
We suggest by this Amendment that there are certain widows who are not in need and who will come under this Clause, and it follows that, if a woman who is not in need receives a pension, she is taking that pension away from another woman who may need it. We are trying to help the Government to find a test to keep out the women who do not need pensions and to bring in another class who deserve pensions. I should have imagined that such a proposal would have met with the strong approval of hon. Members opposite. I understand the objections raised by the last speaker to the means test, but we were in this position: We had to offer some solution of the difficulty, and at the present time in connection with old age
pensions there is a statutory application of the means test. We do not say that it is the best test but it is the test at present carried out by Statute in this country, and we say that by bringing in this test you can remove a certain number of people from the benefits of this Measure while at the same time automatically bringing in another lot of women who to-day are not included.

Mr. PERRY: Will the hon. Member explain how it will bring in others if they carry this Amendment?

Dr. DAVIES: There are other Amendments on the Paper which have that effect.

The CHAIRMAN: The only question before the Committee is what is meant by the Amendment now under discussion and the Government's proposals.

Dr. DAVIES: I was simply answering the interruption of the hon. Member opposite. One would have thought that the very fact that we were trying to help find a method by which these needy widows could be assisted would have met with the strong approval of hon. Members opposite. One hon. Member asked an hon. Friend of mine earlier in the Debate if he could give an instance. I would ask him to remember that under this Bill you are bringing in a class of pre-Act widows whose husbands, per haps 30 or 40 years ago, were for a short period of time in insurable occupation. I have put down nine or 10 cases which I know from my own experience would come under this Bill, and I will give one or two of them. A father had a certain business. It was not a retail, but a producing business, and the son was put into it as an ordinary worker at a weekly wage, and if the Insurance Act had been in force he would have been in an insurable occupation. After a few years, the father died and left the business to the son who a few years ago retired with a fortune. He is still alive, but if he had died, as far as I understand the Bill, because he had been at one time in an insurable occupation his widow would have come under these provisions. [Interruption.] This man has a sister who married a working man in an insurable occupation, and he died many years ago leaving her a widow—the widow of a man who would have been in an insurable occupation. She received a
fortune at her father's death, but she would have been eligible under this Bill for a pension. I have a dozen similar cases in my mind from my own experience.
We suggest this method as an easy way out of the difficulty although, perhaps, a very objectionable way. [Laughter.] I say "objectionable," because I refer to the means test, and if the time should ever come when we can remove the means test from all pensions, old age and others, I, in common with many other hon. Members, would be only too delighted. I was reading in the paper this morning that your Prime Minister, and our Prime Minister, speaking at Leicester yesterday, made an appeal to the public and said be wondered whether we could not regard ourselves in the House of Commons as a National Council and work for the Commonwealth; and yet, when we, on our side, with an earnest desire to help the party opposite and improve their Bill, make certain suggestions to that end, we are met by hon. Members opposite with charges that are not kind and not true, and very often with jeering remarks and silly laughter. That is not the way to deal with the lives and welfare of some of these widows. I have the fullest confidence that the Amendment is of benefit and that it is better than the Clause as it stands. It simply gives the pensions where they are needed, and as long as I have the power to speak in this House, I will always say that need must come first. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Dr. MORGAN: The Committee has just been treated to a dissertation by a medical man. It is unfortunately true that in this House, as outside, we find two types of those who are qualified in medicine. We find the reactionary "die-hard" type, and we find the liberal, progressively-minded type. The Committee has just heard one medical man, who, contrary to the teachings and methods of his profession, completely tied himself up into a knot. He first said that this was an easy way out, then that it was an objectionable way out, and at the end he told us it would be a beneficial way out. The thing seems absurd. He first chooses the easy path way, then the objectionable pathway, and then he chooses what he says is go-
ing to be beneficial to some people. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies), talking about finance, talked of the widow who is not in need. I have been a medical practitioner now for over 20 years, and in my general practice among the poor it is quite the exception to come across a widow who is not in need. I submit that the widow who is not in need is an exceptional person, and that the vast majority of widows will be in need and will benefit from legislation of this character. Therefore, what is the good of wasting all this time talking about a very small minority who will not be harmed in any way by the Bill, instead of getting on with the work of helping those who will need help and making their life a bit easier?
I have found that the widow seems to be the unwilling prey of all the exploiters under modern economic conditions. I find, with regard to workmen's compensation, that the widow has to fight hard every time, often under most distressing conditions, in order to get what she is entitled to, and I find the same thing with regard to War pensions, old age pensions, and health insurance benefit. If we had the means limit which is suggested by the Amendment, we should have the very inquisitorial methods which are considered necessary by the officers who have to ad minister the law; these methods are often searching and penetrating, and mean going into the most intimate details of family life, and they are resented greatly. I think we had better leave the hon. Member to stew in his own juice. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) suggested that the means limit would be a beneficial thing because many a widow, having had a man to work for her and to support her for many years, would have some means. What is the economic position of the husband and of the bulk of the widows who will come under this Bill? Take the average weekly wage at about £2 10s., and let us suppose that the husband and wife, by the exercise of every possible degree of frugality, can save £1 a week—a perfect miracle, but let us sup pose that it is done. At the end of 20 years they will have saved possibly £1,000, and invested at 5 per cent., it would bring in £1 a week. Is the widow not entitled, after a man has given his life working for the country under the
conditions in which the working-classes have to live, with bad housing and the consequent disease, the danger of infection, and the risks to which child birth is subject—

Dr. DAVIES: Not for the man!

Dr. MORGAN: For the woman. You really ought to know better.

Dr. DAVIES: On a point of explanation. I thought the hon. Member was speaking about the man, and then he suddenly talks about matters of maternity.

Dr. MORGAN: I was talking about the conditions under which the working-classes live, and about the savings of the man with the combined frugality of the man and wife. I never like really to ex pose in public the ignorance of my fellow practitioners. Medical etiquette forbids us doing that sort of thing as a rule, but there are times when one must admit that exceptional treatment is required, and I hope that the pill which I have administered to the hon. Gentleman to-day will have some drastic results. If people can save so that at the end of their days they receive £1 a week from their savings, they would still be worthy and entitled, preferably under a non-contributory scheme, to their 10s. a week. I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment, in spite of this difference between two sections of the professions of which hon. Members have had a good exhibition to-day. I hope that the Committee will see that this discussion is ended as soon as possible, so that the widows can get their pensions and we can get on with business instead of having fractious and futile opposition.

Captain CAZALET: However learned the hon. Member who has just spoken may be in the medical profession—and no one doubts that he is—he has misunderstood the motive which has prompted us to put forward this Amendment. He has told us that we are wasting time and trying by a few hours to deprive the widows of the pensions, but if we are to judge from the manner in which hon. Members have understood our Amendment, and from the last speech, it will be very necessary for several more Members on this side further to explain it. An hon. Member who spoke from the other side declared that we have put
down the Amendment with the sole object of scoring a point off the Government. He did not elucidate what he meant, but surely hon. Members will allow us to say that this Amendment has been put down with the most sincere object of trying to make this Bill, to which we gave our assent without a Division, a more efficient Bill, and to make it a Measure better designed to give benefit and relief to those to whom it was originally in tended to give relief. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) and another hon. Member from the Liberal benches tried to draw what was a false analogy between widows' pensions and the salaries enjoyed by Members of Parliament. Some of us may deserve our £400 a year, and others may not, but it is not on a par with the distribution of widows' pensions. It is a salary, and any hon. Member who applies assiduously to his constituency is worth all that meagre amount.
By passing the Money Resolution on Friday we have allocated a sum of money to the Treasury Pensions Account for the purpose of paying out pensions to certain widows. If I am not mistaken, the only method by which we can extend the class of widows to whom pensions are to be paid is by inserting this Amendment, which will reduce the number who will receive in under the Bill as it is drafted, and will thereby reduce the amount of money which the Treasury will have to expend in giving these pensions. Therefore, the surplus can be used for giving the pensions to certain other classes of widows whom we are not allowed to discuss now. Surely that is a logical, reason able and sincere argument, and it is the only method by which we can increase the number of recipients without disobeying the laws of this House and without demanding a further grant from the Treasury which would be out of order. Members of Parliament are trustees for the manner in which this public money is expended. So far from being restrictive, this Amendment is exactly the opposite. It will allow us to enlarge the number of recipients of widows' pensions. Hon. Members opposite have admitted, and no one in their senses would deny, that there must he some widows who will not, who do not, and will never require pensions as given to them under this Bill. Hon. Members opposite have laughed at the sum of 10s. If it is so small, they
ought to admit that an even larger number of widows will not require such an insignificant sum, but the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary opposite will surely allow that there must be some number—

Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Umpteen!

Captain CAZALET: Let us say there will be umpteen widows who will not require pensions under this Bill. To allow a Bill to go through Parliament giving to widows pensions which they do not require is surely bad statesmanship; it is a bad Bill and ought to be corrected, and we are endeavouring by this Amendment to improve it. I believe the number of widows in this category would be very considerable. On the whole widows are thriftly individuals. They have had to work hard in the past. In my own constituency there are a large number of widows who have set themselves up in business, whose children have helped to start them in boarding-houses, or who have become housekeepers in hotels, or whatever their occupation may be. When figures come to be examined, the number of widows who do not and will not require these pensions may be considerably larger than is believed by hon. Members opposite. Personally, I dislike the means test. I think everybody on these benches has made that point, and that ought to show hon. Members opposite with what sincerity we put forward this Amendment. The hon. Lady opposite is logical, in addition to her other qualities, and I hope she will view this thing in a logical way. Many of us on this side dislike the present methods.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): Hear, hear!

Captain CAZALET: I went even further than that. I said that every Member on these benches dislikes the means test, and if she will use her amazing and ingenious gifts to find some other method of introducing a test which will avoid the present inquisitorial demands, we shall then be only too happy to withdraw this Amendment and insert one which no one, I am sure, could draft better than the hon. Lady herself. This is my final point. I believe that if hon. Members opposite will pass this Amendment it will be of the greatest assistance to them in their own constituencies. How
can they defend the present Bill when side by side with a case of real need, which they would be the first to admit should receive benefit, they find one of our opulent widows, one of that umpteen number of widows who do not require and do not deserve the pension? All they will be able to say is that they hope that at some future time more money will be available to grant pensions to those needy cases, but that will be no satisfactory answer, no justification of the anomalies which will arise under this Bill. I say to hon. Members opposite that it is in their own interests, as well as desirable from the point of view of making this an efficient Bill, to support this Amendment, or one drafted by the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to carry out the same object.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: It has been rather suggested by more than one hon. Member opposite that this Clause hardly merits prolonged discussion, but I cannot share that view, and I wish to submit some considerations which seem to me to make this by far the most important part of the Bill, not merely on account of the total money to be expended, but by reason of the principles embodied in it. I wish to state clearly to the Committee what are my views on this topic, because, although my views as an individual are of no importance to anybody—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I thought I would get that from the Socialist benches—as one who represents a great constituency, as one who in a number of elections has received a large number of votes from the electors, it is surely one's duty, on a major issue such as this, to put one's views clearly before the Committee. In my judgment it is an undesirable thing, if it can be avoided, to distribute public money without any certainty that the distribution is being well made. In a time of financial stringency and economic difficulty, and when we are faced with all the other problems with which we are so familiar, the duty of the House to make certain that any distribution of money is carried out on sound lines must appeal to Members of all parties.
It is from that point of view that I approach the consideration of this Clause. I do not propose to quote the speeches of the Prime Minister or to throw criticisms or accusations at the
opposite benches, but I am sure that if this Clause is passed in an unamended form we shall be taking a serious step in the wrong direction. If I am going to mention that it is my view that there should be some means qualification, I am sure hon. Members will not accuse me of doing it from a narrow party or class point of view. This is a most difficult issue, and we must do our best to meet it together. The Amendment proposes as a means test the means test of the Old Age Pensions Acts of 1908 to 1924. I do not myself think that that means test will do, and for this reason. The title of the Bill shows that it has nothing to do with those Acts, but is intended to be incorporated in and to have the closest resemblance to the principles and the character of the Act of 1925. I want to say quite clearly that I am in favour of a means test, and am convinced in my own mind that a means test must be introduced into the Bill, but I am equally convinced that the means test in this Amendment will not do. The curious thing is that it has not yet been said in this Debate that in this very Clause, as it stands, there is a means test, and that in all the National Health Insurance Acts since 1911 there has always been a means test. On this subject I shall try to show the Committee the line on which my own mind is trying to work.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not get too far away from the question before the Committee. The discussion is not upon Clause 1 but upon the points which come within the Amendment.

Mr. SKELTON: I think, Mr. Chair man, you will agree that up to the present moment I have not said anything that can be regarded as being out of order.

The CHAIRMAN: No, But I was just putting in a caution.

Mr. SKELTON: A means test is essential, because without it you cannot be certain that your distribution is as sound as it should be. There are various ways in which a means test could be applied. We have to deal with the squandering of expenditure where there is no need for it. The insurance scheme has from the first laid down the principle that only those persons come under the
benefit of Health Insurance whose incomes are less than £250. It is quite clear that this Bill has to be read in connection with the Insurance Acts and not the Old Age Pensions Act. Surely the line is clearly indicated at which it would be possible to draw a means test which would be satisfactory both from the point of view of legislation and of means.
Having indicated that point of view, I want to say that there are two reasons why a means test must be applied. The first reason is the need of avoiding squandering. The answer to this argument given by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that such cases will be very few, and that the people who are rich enough to do without the pension will not go to the Post Office and ask for it. But surely that class of legislation is unworthy of a legislative assembly dealing with national finance. It is almost a commonplace that you cannot pass legislation, trusting that the people to whom you have given rights will not exercise them. I was very much impressed by an observation which has been made in this Debate, that you can not imagine any woman who would go to the Post Office and take a pension which was obviously not intended for her. It is the duty of those who pass Acts of Parliament to see that the intentions of those Acts are earned out in the words of the Bill.
My second reason is that it is essential for the welfare of this country that legislation as a whole, both remedial and social, should be founded on the basic principle that it should be used as far as possible to help people to help themselves. I think many hon. Members opposite profoundly believe in that principle, and I am quite satisfied that hon. Members opposite have as profound a knowledge of the springs of human action as we have. Amongst the springs of human action none is more invigorating than to know that in a thing which is beneficial to yourself you are taking some part and assisting to do it. That is another reason why we should have a means test, provided that it does not exclude people who ought to be included, and provided that it acts as a suitable dividing line and does not have a crippling effect. We are all agreed that there may be wealthy widows in such circumstances that you cannot
expect them to help themselves, but it is necessary, where you find any member of the community in a position to help in the joint operation between himself and the State, that he should do so, and that the State should not be left to do the whole job.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite will observe that I have said nothing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"] There is a large number of new Members sitting on the opposite side of the House, but when they have been here a little longer they will give up what is really a schoolboy joke. It is clear that there are large gaps in these proposals, and the total sum available has been limited by the Financial Resolution. If we want to fill up some of these gaps it can be done only by transferring the money from the purpose for which it is intended under this Clause to a different purpose. The essence of the problem is, how are you going to find a test which will help those who deserve to be helped. This Clause does not enable the smallest number of those who should help to take part in the work of helping themselves.
It only remains for me to say what I propose to do with regard to this Amendment if it be carried to a Division. I shall vote against the Amendment. I think it is unsound in principle to con fuse the Insurance Acts with the Old Age Pensions Acts. I shall vote, on the other hand, for an Amendment later on the Paper which proposes another means limit. It is not that I shirk the idea of voting for a means limit. I am going to vote for a means limit, and I hope I have made it clear why I think it is essential; but I want to find one that is based on principle, and not one that is simply founded on the Old Age Pensions Acts. This is a matter in which assistance should be given from both sides of the Committee, because it is a basic principle; it is vital to decide how far we are going to distribute money gratis over a wide and unanalysed expanse, and whether we are going to restrict the gratis administration of money within limits of which all can approve. In my judgment we must find a limit, and it is to the Insurance Acts and not to the Old Age Pensions Acts that we must turn. I look with horror on the introduction into the Insurance Acts of that foolish and complicated system by which the income of the old age pensioner under the Act of
1924 is decided. It was my privilege the other day to hear the regulations read, but it is not an operation that I should wish any of my friends to undergo.
That is not the kind of means limit that we want. We want the means limit, in my judgment, which is already more or less incorporated in the whole insurance system, namely, that limit whereby people do not come into insurance whose in come is more than £250 a year. I urge the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose presence on the bench all of us who come from Scotland are glad to see, to begin the work of considering whether the means limit to be discussed in the future should not be put into this Bill. These decisions cannot be made in a moment. A great Government Department dealing with a very important Bill cannot be expected to make a decision like that on the Floor of the House in a moment. If a decision is to be made in favour of that larger means limit when the Amendment proposing it comes on, the Government must be thinking about it now. I urge them to think about it and to come to that decision. I am sure that no one in this House would for a moment admit the proposition that a limit of £250 for a widow's income, such as has been accepted as the whole basis of Health Insurance, is one which will cause hardship or in any way restrict the beneficial results of this Measure.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I think the Committee will feel that we have learned something from this somewhat lengthy Debate on this first Amendment, though I would remind the Committee that time flies and time is limited, and I hope that we may be able to come to an early decision on the Amendment. I have been interested in this Amendment as throwing light upon the attitude of mind of hon. Members opposite. I think it is perfectly clear that hon. Members in the Conservative party are desirous of sup porting an extension of the principle of the means limit, and it is as well that the Committee should have that brought to their minds. In the second place, the Committee has learnt to-night, as a result of speeches from the Conservative benches, that, much as hon. Members opposite love the theory, they are very doubtful about the wisdom of the prac-
tice, and most of the speeches from the Conservative benches have hardly been enthusiastically in support of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). On the whole, it would appear to me that there is some rift in the ranks of the party opposite, because I see that a number of them do not support in any real fashion the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, while they are anxious to cling in this Bill to the maintenance of the means limit.
In moving this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman, in an extraordinarily clear and logical speech, such as we always expect from him, made certain points, said in the first place that the maximum amount of money has been made available, and asked, can we in some way divert some of this money in order that it might be used for other purposes within the Act which would be much more worthy? He attacked the selection of the people who are coming within the scope of the amending Bill, and, as I listened, it seemed to me that his assumption was that all the pre-Act widows in the insurable class are well-to-do people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the whole basis of his argument. [Interruption.] I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I have never heard one word from him during the Debates on this Bill in which he has admitted that one needy widow has come within the scope of the Bill. The whole story that has been told of it has been the story of the fat and pursy widow who is well off and can afford to do without a pension—

Viscountess ASTOR: Who is married again within a year after her husband's death.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sorry the Noble Lady is getting excited, but, surely, the right hon. Gentleman's case rests upon this assumption, that a very substantial number of people who are well off are coming within the scope of this Bill, or else there is not going to be a sufficiently large sum available to be devoted to the other good purposes which the right hon. Gentle man has never taken the trouble to specify. I do not accept the view that rich widows are hung in clusters; I do
not accept the view that within the insurable class, the class of society for whom the right hon. Gentleman himself made provision, there is a very large number of people who are living in the lap of luxury. If that were so, there was never any need for the National Health Insurance Act. That determined the class of people to be included, and it was upon that Act that the right hon. Gentleman built his own scheme. It is for people of that kind that we are trying to make provision in this Bill, and, if the original Health Insurance Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) set out these categories of people who were unable to make provision for themselves, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston in his own Bill, founded on that Health Insurance Act, felt that it was precisely this class of people who should receive widows' pensions, why is complaint made of me? I am following the lines of a worthy tradition.
The pre-Act widow of the insurable class is on the whole no better off than the post-Act widow of that class. If that be so, then this wildly imaginative view of large numbers of well-to-do widows profiting by this Bill is obviously erroneous. The right hon. Gentleman has not put down any Amendments to indicate how he would spend the money which he proposes to save by this Amendment. He made the point about need being the test. Broadly speaking, need should obviously be the test. That was the principle on which the De-rating Act went and, when cases were pointed out not of rich widows but of other rich persons benefiting in spite of themselves, the right hon. Gentleman then said with a certain logic: "Yes, but we must deal with need as a whole. Here is industry staggering under this burden of rates and we must bring some relief. We cannot distinguish between the well-to-do firm and the firm tottering on the verge of bankruptcy. We must deal with all alike." When I, following his illustrious example, deal with them all alike, I am told I am wrong and that I am departing from the principle that need is the test. I am not; I am dealing with a class of people belonging to the insurable class of the same kind that the Liberal and Conservative Governments thought worthy of help. Like the right hon. Gen-
tleman on de-rating, I am not disposed to make distinctions between individuals. Let me remind the Committee what is the essence of this Amendment. It is that all the 300,000 to 400,000 applicants who will come forward, however poor they may appear externally, should everyone be subjected to an inquisition with regard to means.

Mr. ALBERY: Will not they be subject to a very severe inquisition to find out if they are eligible?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member would only read the Bill and the memorandum he would find that that is not nearly so severe a strain on my Department as the proposal now made. In the case of every death since the institution of National Health Insurance there are the records to show it and, in the case of the pre-Act widows, it is in my judgment much easier to ascertain what the occupation was than to institute an inquiry into every application. It is work that cannot be shirked, for there lurks in the background the Exchequer and Audit Department which is entitled to assure itself that the proper inquisition has been made into every application.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Then the answer to my hon. Friend's question is that there will be an inquisition into every application?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There will be no inquiry into means, but an inquiry into occupation, which is an entirely different thing. We are being asked, in order to search out the relatively small number of well-off people, to put all the rest through this inquisition so as to save some money and to devote it to purposes about which we have heard nothing. In his own Bill four years ago, the right hon. Gentleman, in defending this principle, used these words:
The great merits of this scheme is that you can do away with the irritating, exasperating and humiliating inquiry, an advantage which outweighs many of the so-called injustices and anomalies which hon. Members opposite profess to find in this Bill.
I associate myself to the full with those words. The inquiry is no less humiliating because it is applied to an elderly widow. The right hon. Gentleman when he made this departure from his own
principle of contribution, when he first stepped on the slippery slope of bringing in pre-Act widows, sold his principles and taught me the way to proceed under this Bill. I know children were the excuse, or rather, let me say, it was the children that brought them in. It still remains true that not one penny of contribution was ever paid in respect of those widows, and they were not an unsubstantial number. That was a big breach in the principle. The means limit was not applied. Why? We have never had an answer. We are told we must have the means limit applied now be cause no contributions have been paid. Why was it not applied to the widow with children in respect of whom no contributions have been paid? Is the case of the pre-Act widow with children growing up, who care for her as a rule, to be different from that of the elderly widow often without any support or assistance?
If it be right to abandon the means limit in the case of the pre-Act widow with children, what case have Members opposite for asking that we should apply it here? There is no logic in this. If there has been a departure from the principle of contribution, then the right hon. Gentleman began it. He made a breach in the wall. I admit without shame that I have widened that breach considerably, but he himself made it. He established this vicious principle of paying pensions without regard to the means of the recipients. All we are doing is to follow the trail blazed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot understand what all this discussion has been about. The only two points at issue are, first, that benefit should be payable as a result of some body's contributions, and, secondly, that where benefits are payable and there has been no contribution, the means limit should apply.
I submit that the case of the pre-War widow with children destroys every word which has been uttered on the benches opposite in support of this Amendment. I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise that. It is quite clear that they are not very happy about this Amendment. Indeed, some of them appealed to me to try and find a way out of their difficulty. Delighted as I should have been to help them, I am sorry that I am unable to do so. I would ask them to go
a little step further and to base them selves on the logic of the Act of 1925, and admit and agree with me that in taking the line we have taken we have made no new departure of principle at all, that what is good enough for the pre-Act widow with young children is also good enough for the elderly widow whose age is 55 or over, that the same conditions should apply, and that, if you bring within a scheme of this kind people who, unfortunately, were left out and could not be brought in on a contributory basis, they should be treated in precisely the same way as the beneficiaries who have contributed under the Act. That is all I am asking, and I submit to the Committee that it is a perfectly reasonable proposal, and I trust that the Committee will agree with me in it.

Sir K. WOOD: I think many Members of the Committee will agree with me that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has not been more fortunate in his speech to-night than he was on the last occasion when, late at night, he addressed this House. I also suggest that when he reads his speech in the calmer atmosphere of to-morrow morning he will regret many of the statements which he has made. Take his statement that an exception was made from the contributory principle in the last Act because children were the excuse—a very disgraceful thing to say. I do not think that there is any hon. Member sitting opposite who will associate him self with that phrase. It was a shameful thing to say. What, in fact, were the circumstances? The circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman on reflection knows full well, were that under the contributory scheme which the Government of that day introduced a certain number of post-Act widows would receive pensions for themselves and allowances for their children. It was in order that children of the pre-Act widow should not suffer and be put in a worse position than children of the post-Act widow that that provision was made. I suggest that that was a perfectly proper and the only honourable course to take, and that at amply justifies the exception which was made from the contributory principle. Whether that was so or not, I say that it is a reprehensible thing to say that
children were the excuse for making that exception to the Act.
There is one thing which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with in the course of these Debates, namely, the pledges upon which this Amendment is founded. There were particularly two pledges made at the last General Election by responsible Members of the party opposite. It is no good—and Members opposite know this as well as I do—referring to a long written document such as that which was issued by the Labour party in their Manifesto at the Election. The right hon. Gentleman has read out to us on several occasions the undertakings given in that Manifesto. But, he has deliberately refused to deal with the pledges which were given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at a critical time in the Election and which dealt specifically and much more vitally with the matter which we are discussing in the present Amendment. What were they? I suppose that there could have been no more explicit pledges given to a definite class of the community than those two pledges. The first pledge, which, I suppose, we must regard as being modified by the Prime Minister's undertaking, was given by the Foreign Secretary, that every widow should receive a pension. He went on to say that that pension should be increased. There was not a single limitation. He was dealing with a class of the community who, quite rightly from their point of view, were very anxious to get a pension. They were naturally looking to the respective parties to see what they were going to do, and the Foreign Secretary, a man, one would have thought, with some responsibility, deliberately gave that pledge. He said further—and this is one of the reasons for this Amendment—that there was money in the Pensions Fund which would permit not only of every widow in the country receiving a pension but of the pension being increased. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about that?"] An hon. Gentleman says: "What about that?" Let him look at this Bill to night. There was a further pledge to which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has not referred in any way at all. He has not given the slightest explanation of it or why it has not been carried out in this Bill, and it
is on this pledge more specifically that this Amendment is being moved. What did the Prime Minister say only a very short time before the General Election?

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: We have had it before.

Sir K. WOOD: We shall have it a good many times. He said:
We will extend the system in principle in such a way that a widow in need will he the one test for qualification on the Pensions Register.
As far as the Foreign Secretary's pledge is concerned, it has been flagrantly and cynically broken.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it appears to me that his remarks apply neither to the Government's proposals nor his own Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps I had better explain a little more in detail. This Amendment is endeavouring to incorporate in the Bill the test of need, and the reason why I am advancing this argument is because of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservative party who were desirous of extending the system of means limit. My answer to that, and that is why I quoted the pledge again, was that it was not the Conservative party who suggested that there should be a test of means, but it was the Prime Minister. That is one of the reasons why this Amendment has been moved, and I would invite whoever replies finally for the Government, to address themselves to an explanation of how it is that the under taking of the Government in that connection is not being carried out. You may remember, Mr. Young, that in the course of the earlier Debate to-day on India, the Secretary of State for India referred to the position of the leaders of parties. He said that the leaders of parties, apparently those with whom he was acquainted, had to do some dirty things. It is a very dirty thing that this particular pledge is not being carried out.
Another point put by the right hon. Gentleman, was that in this Amendment the suggestion in relation to the means limit was outrageous. He says that it means an inquisition, that it means asking people what are their means, and putting them through a series of ques-
tions, to which he strongly objected. Who was the person who, on the lines of our Amendment, laid down this so-called inquisition, this means limit, which we have incorporated in our Amendment. Was it my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Health? No, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the present Government. I have heard all sorts of statements from hon. Members opposite during this; Debate, objecting to the inquisition, or the means limit set forth in the Amendment. Why did they not make the objections in 1924 when they actually voted for the very suggestion which is made in our Amendment?
I would make an appeal to Members of the Liberal party. In connection with a pensions scheme, you must have one of two systems. You must have the contributory principle, which is the principle and the system of the Liberal party, or you must have the non-contributory system. When the Widows' Pensions Bill was brought before the House by my right hon. Friend, the first Bill, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, com mended the Bill and commended the contributory principle. The alternative, unless you do a gross injustice, is to have, as we set out in this Amendment, a means test of some kind. That is inevitable. It is said that there are very few rich widows who would be affected by this particular provision, and why not let them have the money. The answer to that is that the alternative suggested in our Amendment follows the proposal of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer which is incorporated in an Act of Parliament as a means test. That test is that where the yearly means of the claimant do not exceed £26 5s. the rate of pension would be 10s. a week. Where the means did not exceed £42, the rate of old age pension would be 2s. a week. That separates the old people into two categories, those who come within that particular means limit and those who do not.
If you apply that particular test, as we do in our Amendment, to the provisions of this Bill, what follows? It would make available for other classes of the community, equally deserving, if the Committee desired to assist them, a large sum of money. By giving the pen-
sion irrespective of the means test you do an injustice, whereas the adoption of the principle of our Amendment would mean that you would be able to give money to an equally deserving class of the community who are in exactly the same status as the people who would receive the pension under the test of means provided in the Amendment. By not putting in a means limit, it means that other deserving classes, such as the spinster class, or the woman who has an invalid husband to support, are excluded, whereas under our Amendment they might come in exactly on the same basis as the widows who come in under our particular limitation.
If you have a large sum of money, such as £80,000,000, to expend, it is not fair to say: "We are going to take a particular section of widows over 55 years of age and give them that sum, and leave all the other classes of the community to wait until an unspecified date." The fairest thing to do if you have £80,000,000 to divide, is to take the test set out in the Amendment, take all the people who have an income of, say, less than £50 a year, as specified in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own proposal, and divide that sum of money amongst the various classes of the community who are in need. I heard one hon. Member on my own side saying that this Bill was apparently put forward as a popular proposal. There was never a greater mistake made by anyone. There is nothing popular in this proposal because it is so grossly unjust. Everyone will be supporting this Amendment before long. Every day we are get ting letters. [An HON. MEMBER: "From rich widows."] Not necessarily from rich widows. Hon. Members are still endeavouring to ride off on that phrase. I do not call a woman who has £50 a year a rich widow, but if you have a certain sum of money to divide it is only fair that it should be divided among particular sections of the community in all directions, and the suggestion that we are bringing forward this proposal because we desire to help rich widows is quite untrue as applied to the party I represent. I say it is far better to stick to the contributory principle. Let us be perfectly straightforward about this. There is no earthly chance of there being a single Member opposite who will be able to go
back to his constituency in this Parliament and say that the Prime Minister's pledge has been carried out and that every woman in need will receive a pension. There is no man in this House who will say that there is even the slightest vestige of possibility of it, after spending 18 millions of money on a section of the community—widows of 55 years of age.
What about the widow under 55? I am very anxious for an answer to this question. An hon. Gentleman asks: Why are we not suggesting that widows under 55 should get a pension? We never gave any pledge. We never gave any undertaking. We were in the position that at the last election we said the finances of the country did not permit it. On the other hand we were faced with Members who said they would give a pension to every woman in need. It was a lie, because they were not in a position to fulfil the promise. What was the reason advanced against these proposals by the right hon. Gentleman the other night? He has made two replies to these proposals. He has given a reply to-night and has endeavoured to ride off on the ground that it does not matter about the rich widows. The view is, I take it, that they would ask how many Members need £400 a year and how many refuse it. He said it was a monstrous thing to impose tests of means. What did he say the other evening very late at night? He said—and this is the reason he might have advanced again if he wanted to be consistent this evening: "We are bringing in the elderly widow who is finding difficulty in the labour market and who is economically superannuated and is of all people the most pitiful."
10.0 p.m.
That is supposed to be the answer to the Amendment this evening. He is choosing the elderly women of 55 rather than giving the pension to the largest number possible, because they are the persons most in need. Do hon. Members agree to that? It is a strange suggestion that of all the people in this country it must be the widow of 55 years of age and over who is the worst off. I will give a reply to that, because it has a direct bearing on the Amendment. I will read this to the Committee and ask hon. Members if they agree with it:
The position of a woman with a bed ridden husband and a number of children
is infinitely worse than that of many widows, because she has not only cast upon her the support of herself and children, but the sup port of her ailing husband.
I thought that the person who of all persons was the most pitiable was the elderly widow, and yet, according to this statement which I have just read and which is the utterance of the same Gentleman, the position of a woman with a bed-ridden husband is much worse. I will take another case, as I have been invited to do so. I will read to the House another statement and hon. Members will see if they agree with it or not:
For the life of me I cannot understand why there is not included in the Bill the case of women who are even worse off than if they were widows with children. Take, for instance, the case of a woman whose husband is in a lunatic asylum, with three or four children. Her case is immensely worse than even if she were a widow.
Does anybody dispute that? And yet the right hon. Gentleman to-night has told us that the reason why he has neglected this class and will not accept the Amendment is that he thinks the widow over 55 is worse off than any other person in the community—a ridiculous, stupid, monstrous statement.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Minister will include the cases he mentioned just now in his Bill, will the right hon. Gentle man agree that his party will give sup port to the Bill and to the additional charge that will be necessary?

Sir K. WOOD: I shall be very glad to convey that question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. I understand that perhaps communications are not so free between the hon. Member and the Minister as they are between the Minister and myself. When the right hon. Gentleman answers the first part of the question, I will consider the second. But I do not want to be diverted even by an interruption of that kind. So rarely does the hon. Member come to the assistance of the hon. Gentleman, that I felt bound to give way, but I must continue this argument, because it goes to the very root of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman says that the elderly widows are the greatest sufferers, and that he must assist them. Do hon. Members who sit beside him agree or
not? There are cases of husbands suffering from epilepsy, cancer, diabetes, and diseases of a lingering kind, whose wives have to support them—

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Member that the instances which he is giving are not covered either by the Amendment or by the Bill as introduced, and he is therefore out of order in discussing them.

Sir K. WOOD: I was only responding to the invitation which the right hon. Gentleman gave me, but I say at once, Mr. Chairman, that it is only necessary for you to intimate that you think I am even in the slightest degree out of order and you know that I shall be only too happy to fall in with your ruling. I only want to say that I trust hon. Members who sit on the Liberal Benches will reconsider their attitude towards this Amendment. I believe that they with us—at any rate if the word of their leader is to be taken—believe in the contributory principle; and that contributory principle has not been adopted as regards the particular matter which we are discussing at the moment. What is the alternative? I am sure that hon. Members who sit on the Liberal Benches would not agree that £80,000,000 should be given to a selected class of women, picked out because they are over 55 years of age, without any test, and that by that means other people equally deserving should be deprived of any benefit. That is the proposal.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman continually to repeat the same argument?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must leave that question to me.

Sir K. WOOD: Why the hon. Member should not be prepared to listen to this argument I do not know, because you, Mr. Chairman, will, I am sure, remember the days when my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Health (Mr. Chamberlain) and I listened with very great patience to the arguments of hon. Members opposite. I hope hon. Members on the Liberal benches will reconsider their position on this matter. I feel sure that they do not want to prevent, as this Bill does prevent, other sections of the com-
munity from sharing in the benefits of pensions. I am sure they will come to this conclusion in the end: that there is no chance for other people to share in this large sum of money and apart from the contributory principle; and even if you have to impose a means limit it is far better that you should be able to give money to other deserving sections of the community. It is true that they, with us, object to the imposition of the means limit, and a contributory scheme would avoid that. If they are challenged about that all that they need say in answer to the criticism is that it is the suggestion of the Prime Minister himself, and there fore no one would object to it. I hope we shall have with us all those who want fair play so far as the distribution of this money is concerned.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): Surely for fantastic irrelevance the speech to which we have just listened—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Lieut.-Colonel Sir LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to another hon. Member's speech in the terms which the hon. Member has just used?

The CHAIRMAN: I did not catch the expression which the hon. Member used, but if it was unparliamentary I am sure he will withdraw it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I bow to your ruling. You said, however, that you did not catch the words which I used. The words I used were that for fantastic and continuous irrelevance surely the speech to which we have just listened—

Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. If the speech had been irrelevant would not you, Mr. Chairman, have stopped it?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I was going to proceed to say that I was partly basing my observation on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had been called to order by the Chairman two or three times during the course of his speech. What is the point which we have been discussing for some time? The point is whether or not we shall have a means test; and certain hon. Members opposite, I think, have declared that while they themselves
are in favour of some kind of test, they are not in favour of the particular kind of test which has been moved from their Front Bench. I should like the Commit tee to consider with us the difficulties by which we are all faced in this matter. I suppose there is no one in any quarter of the House who desires that there should be any expenditure of public money to persons who do not require it. With that principle I take it there is general agreement. I should have liked to have seen a keener appreciation of that principle during the time while the Derating Bill was being passed in this House. At that time, hon. Members will remember, large sums of public money were handed out to classes in the community irrespective of the needs of those classes. It was not a case of giving an income of one shilling or two shillings to some poor widow; it was a case of handing out thousands of pounds, if you please, to wealthy corporations.

Mr. REMER: May I ask, on a point of Order, whether it is in order to discuss the De-rating Bill upon this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to discuss the De-rating Bill, but comparisons may be made between the De-rating Bill and the Measure before the Committee.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I was observing that we should all be happy if the principle that public money should be spent only upon the needy classes in the State had been ruthlessly applied by our predecessors in office during the past four years. What are the practical difficulties about this means test? First of all, if the Amendment is carried it will, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has said, involve an inquisition into the affairs of some 300,000 or 400,000 applicants. The affairs of every one of them will require to be examined, and that will involve an extraordinary expenditure of public money in examination only. It will involve, further, an extraordinary delay in the payment of pensions, for it is absolutely impossible for the present administrative machine to undertake an examination into the financial affairs of all the applicants covered by this Bill, and for the machine also to be in a position to pay the pensions at the time provided by the terms of this Bill. There fore if this Amendment is carried we
shall certainly require to re-cast the dates upon which pensions shall be paid, and delay the payment of those pensions for periods which may mean six months or even more.
Will right hon. and hon. Members consider what this inquisition means? There have been inquisitions under the Pensions Acts. They exist now. What do they mean? They mean a perpetual examination into the affairs of the old man or the old woman, and into the affairs of their sons and daughters. Does a postal order come from Canada every week; is there a daughter in service, or a son at work, supplying them with regular financial assistance; do they get regular assistance in the form of goods or old clothes, or in the payment of rent; do they get Sunday meals. All this has actually to be calculated in a means test. And this House is asked to multiply this inquisition into the affairs of 300,000 households in this country. That is the contribution which the Conservative party makes to the extension of pensions. I do not know what the Treasury might save if the Amendment is carried. We do not know. Questions have been put in this House for an estimate, but no one can even guess the amount that might be saved. In some cases we might save a shilling. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) talked about the means of a per son with £49 a year. What would the State save there? It would save a shilling. When the income if £31 10s. the weekly rate of pension becomes 8s., and the State would save 2s.
No amount of quotations from speeches or election or other literature can get round the fact I am putting before the Committee, that the Amendment pro posed will save very small sums of money indeed at the best. The Minister of Health is maintaining in fact the pledge made by the Prime Minister when he said that it was the widow in need who would be dealt with. It is the insured class which are being dealt with under this Bill, and it is the insured class as a whole which is the class in need. A woman who reaches the age of 55 and is a widow, and who is insured, is the person who is in need. Here and there there may be exceptions. As one hon. Member said, there was a woman in the insured class who became an Eastern
Princess. A woman who is in the insured class now might become the legatee of a South American millionaire, but these are units among thousands, and the suggestion of hon. Members opposite that, without a test as to means, there will be placed on the pensions list, out of the insured class, multitudes of wealthy widows is a fantasy. We oppose the Amendment on the ground of cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, we oppose it on the ground of administrative cost, on the ground of delay, and on the ground that it will involve a shameful, irritating, and useless investigation into the budgets of thousands of poor folk in this country. We believe that when the full facts of this Measure and of the opposition to it are placed before the 500,000 homes in this land which will benefit under the Measure many hon. Members opposite will be sorry for the speeches which they have made this afternoon.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: The hon. Gentleman who spoke last was a little vague with regard to the Prime Minister's speech which he professed to quote. May I give the actual words? Speaking at Buxton on 24th April the Prime Minister said:
We will extend the system in principle in such a way that a widow in need will be the one test of qualification for the pensions register.
Our point is, that women in need in many cases would not get pensions and that many people who are not in need would get pensions.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not the point before the Committee. We can only deal with what is contained in the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is raising a Second Reading point.

Sir A. POWNALL: I am trying to explain the Amendment as I understand it. It is intended to ensure that widows who are not qualified under the means test, and are not entitled to pensions, shall not have pensions, and that there shall be a scale with regard to those who have pensions.

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that while this Amendment might be accepted, it does not necessarily follow that the other Amendments on the point will be accepted.

Sir A. POWNALL: Anyhow, I want to appeal, if I may, to the Liberal party for their support. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) said he was not in favour of the Amendment because there was no means test in connection with the payment of salaries to Members of Parliament. I submit that that is not an analogous case. A much more analogous case is the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 passed by the Liberal party, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a supporter in this House at the time. I submit that is a much more pertinent comparison and that this Amendment deserves Liberal support because we are taking a leaf from the Liberal book. As regards the parentage of this Amendment I may indeed say that it is taken not only from the Liberal party but also from the party opposite. The other parent of this Amendment is a Socialist parent, based also on the Old Age Pensions Act of 1924, and therefore it is not unfair to say that in putting down this Amendment we are merely carrying out the principle adopted in the first in stance by the Liberal party 20 years ago and then adopted by the Socialist patty five years ago. It is not often that two great parties disown their legitimate off spring as has been done in this instance.
We have heard a good deal with regard to inquisition, but I could not help feeling when I heard those remarks that the hon. Members who made them could not have the same acquaintance with Income Tax forms that some of us have had the misfortune to have. One hon. Member said that questions about sons and daughters might be raised. In connection with the Income Tax, you have to put down the exact ages of your sons and daughters, and so far is inquisition carried that you have to say whether you are living with or separate from your wife. Furthermore, every investment you have and the exact dividend received from it is asked for by the representatives of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that is the case with those who con tribute to the national revenue many hundreds of millions of pounds, surely it is not unfair to ask that those who are going to receive this money should give particulars with regard to the amount of their incomes. It seems to me a perfectly fair Amendment, and I hope it will
be pressed to a Division. I fail to see the objection of hon. Members opposite to it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not sure if my point will be in order, but I hope it will. I want to ask one question with regard to widows of 55, who are now in the position of being able, if they are out of work, to receive unemployment benefit. If this is carried, does it mean that the widow of 55 will be deprived of that benefit and can only draw an old age pension? The second point is in connection with this Debate. It seems to me, from the last hon. Member's speech, that if he and his colleagues who pay Income Tax want to get out of doing so, there is a simple way, and that is to pay what they are asked. They do not need to fill up any forms. There is no inquisition made if they do that. The only Income Tax form I get is in connection with my salary, and I always fill it up. If I do not, the tax is immediately stopped from my wages, and if I do not want an inquisition I need not fill up the form.
The speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was, in my view, unanswerable, because the cost of administration would far outweigh any real saving under this Amendment. The late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health asked what about this widow being left in and that widow being left out. If you start a means test, you would have one person just left out on the border line and another person just brought in, and that does not satisfy the position at all. In my view, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has made an unanswerable case for bringing in a small non-party Bill for abolishing the means test for old age pensions as well. I hope that before Parliament adjourns, the Government, having got an almost unanimous approval of the House, and particularly of the Liberal party, against the means test, will take the opportunity of introducing a Bill to give the old age pension without any inquisition at all.

Mr. MELLER: I listened with great interest to the discussion on this Amendment, and I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the burden of the speeches from this side have been on the question of the extension of the means test. If I understand the other side, the burden of their speeches have been to
object to a means test. If there be any unanimity required in the House, we have it in the agreement that a means test is an undesirable thing. Any Member who has served on a pensions committee cannot but regret that it is necessary before the conferment of an old age pension, that the means test should be applied, and if it were possible to remove the means test for old age pensions, I am sure that there would be a strong body of support in the House. May I recall to hon. Members who were here in 1924 that the present Chancellor had an opportunity of carrying out what seems to be the wish of the Members on his side, and I remember a strong discussion which took place, and earnest appeals were made from his own party and from other Members that the means test for old age pensions should be abolished. There was, however, no response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, his great excuse at that time being that they had not the money with which to do it.
Under this Bill, a certain amount of money has been placed at the disposal of the Department for the purpose of dealing with pensions, and I should have thought that the first thing the Government would have done before they attempted to disperse money in a generous way, would have been to adjust some of the grievances which exist under the Old Age Pensions Act. On the Second Reading of this Bill, I said that it would have been a good thing if the Government had applied themselves to that maxim which says that you should be just before you are generous; and I suggest now with stronger emphasis that there are a number of men and women of a most deserving class who have passed the age of 70, and who are denied even the benefit of a 10s. pension, because of some small amount which they may have of their own. Is not the case of a per son over 70, who is deprived of the opportunity of working, even harder than the case of a woman of 50, 55 and up wards. The Government would have done well and would have caused greater satisfaction than they will do under this Measure, if they had met the case of those people.
On the Second Reading, I suggested that the proposals of this Bill would
cause a great amount of dissatisfaction. I repeat what I said then, that there are a number of women who are not in need of the particular benefit which is being given under this Bill. The Bill brings in a class of person whose husbands have either shown that they were in the employed class, and therefore insured, or that, if the Insurance Act had been in operation at the time when these men were working, they would have been insured persons. The limitation under the insurance scheme is £250, and the period of years over which you pro pose to spread this Bill in order to bring in widows is anything from 30 to 40 years. I want hon. Members opposite to consider what class of people would have been brought within the ambit of the health insurance scheme 30 to 40 years ago. Think of what £250 a year meant then, and then ask yourselves how many men 30 or 40 years ago who got £250 a year were unable to provide something for their widows. What we say is, "If you have the money to spend let your generosity be shown to the class that needs it; save as much as you can on those who do not need it."
The proposals in this Amendment ought to receive the very serious consideration of hon. Members opposite. What is the main burden of the objection raised by the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland? I understand the Minister's justification for objecting to the Amendment is that every application for a pension would require examination, and said that would be placing such a burden upon his Department that it would be unreasonable to set the machinery in motion. Is that the sort of answer we are to have? When we propose to safe guard either the collection of the revenue or the paying out of public moneys, are we to be told that we are not to take any precautions because of the cost? It is the first time I have ever heard that principle introduced by a responsible Minister. We are further told, "See what time will be lost if we are to apply these tests; see how many people will have their pensions delayed." If the Minister and the Under-Secretary will look at their Measure, they will see they have made provision for the payment of claims should there be undue delay in their examination. Neither of their excuses is a good answer to the proposals we put forward.
In this Amendment we are endeavouring to confer the greatest amount of good upon the largest number of people, whereas hon. Members opposite only desire to be able to go to the people and say, "See what we are doing to you. All of you, whether you are in need or not, should join us, because as soon as you join us you will get money for nothing." This is another of the alluring and attractice proposals which the Socialist party put forward in order to draw people to their side, but I am convinced that there well be an upheaval of opinion against the Labour Government for introducing a Measure which throws away public money indiscriminately, which

gives to those not in need and leaves out a number of persons who are in need. This Government ought at least to have been honest to their own people, honest to the views they have expressed in past Parliaments, and, before distributing money in this generous way, they ought at least to have removed the injustices, the inequalities and the inquisitions of the 1908 Act.

Mr. GREENWOOD: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 126.

Division No. 10.]
AYES.
10.42 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Horrabin, J. F.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Dickson, T.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Alpass, J. H.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Ammon, Charles George
Dukes, C.
Isaacs, George


Arnott, John
Duncan, Charles
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Aske, Sir Robert
Ede, James Chuter
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edmunds, J. E.
Johnston, Thomas


Ayles, Walter
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Egan, W. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Barnes, Alfred John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barr, James
Foot, Isaac
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Batey, Joseph
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Freeman, Peter
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Bellamy, Albert
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kelly, W. T.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kennedy, Thomas


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gibbins, Joseph
Knight, Holford


Benson, G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Glassey, A. E.
Lang, Gordon


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gosling, Harry
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Birkett, W. Norman
Gossling, A. G.
Lathan, G.


Blindell, James
Gould, F.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Bowen, J. W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawrence, Susan


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Granville, E.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gray, Milner
Lawson, John James


Bromfield, William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bromley, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Leach, W.


Brooke, W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lees, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Groves, Thomas E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lindley, Fred W.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Burgess, F. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Longbottom, A. W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lunn, William


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Harbord, A.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Cameron, A. G.
Hardle, George D.
McElwee, A.


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Percy A.
McEntee, V. L.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mackinder, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McKinlay, A.


Chater, Daniel
Haycock, A. W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Church, Major A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
McShane, John James


Clarke, J. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mansfield, W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
March, S.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marcus, M.


Compton, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Markham, S. F.


Cove, William G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Marley, J.


Daggar, George
Hoffman, P. C.
Mathers, George


Dallas, George
Hollins, A.
Matters, L. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Hopkin, Daniel
Maxton, James


Melville, J. B.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Messer, Fred
Ritson, J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Middleton, G.
Romeril, H. G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H, (Derby)


Mills, J. E.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Montague, Frederick
Rothschild, J. de
Tillett, Ben


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Rowson, Guy
Tinker, John Joseph


Morley, Ralph
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Toole, Joseph


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Tout, W. J.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Townend, A. E.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sandham, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mort, D. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Turner, B.


Moses, J. J. H.
Scurr, John
Vaughan, D. J.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sexton, James
Viant, S. P.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Walker, J.


Muff, G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallace, H. W.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Murnin, Hugh
Shield, George William
Watkins, F. C.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Naylor, T. E.
Shillaker, J. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shinwell, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Palin, John Henry
Simmons, C. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Paling, Wilfrid
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
West, F. R.


Palmer, E. T.
Sinkinson, George
Westwood, Joseph


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sitch, Charles H.
White, H. G.


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Picton-Tubervill, Edith
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Potts, John S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Price, M. P.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Pybus, Percy John
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wise, E. F.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stephen, Campbell
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Raynes, W. R.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Richards, R.
Strauss, G. R.



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sullivan, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Astor, Viscountess
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Atkinson, C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gower, Sir Robert
Muirhead, A. J.


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peake, Captain Osbert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham)
Hammersley, S. S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Purbrick, R.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsbotham, H.


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, John R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, S. York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Iveagh, Countess of
Salmon, Major I.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dixey, A. C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lymington, Viscount
Smithers, Waldron


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Ferguson, Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Meller, R. J.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Thomson, Sir F.




Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wells, Sydney R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Turton, Robert Hugh
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor




 Warrender.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 293.

Division No. 11.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Purbrick, R.


Astor, Viscountess
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsbotham, H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, John R.


Atkinson, C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Hammersley, S. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balniel, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bevan. S. J. (Holborn)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bracken, B.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Butler, R. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Carver, Major W. H.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Christie, J. A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lymington, Viscount
Thomson, Sir F.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Todd. Capt. A. J.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dixey, A. C.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wells, Sydney R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ferguson, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ford. Sir P. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ganzoni, Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert



Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Wallace and Captain


Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Margesson.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bowen, J. W.
Cove, William G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Daggar, George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Broad, Francis Alfred
Dallas, George


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Dalton, Hugh


Alpass, J. H.
Bromley, J.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Ammon, Charles George
Brooke, W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Arnott, John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Aske, Sir Robert
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dickson, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Ayles, Walter
Buchanan, G.
Dukes, C.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Burgess, F. G.
Duncan, Charles


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Ede, James Chuter


Barnes, Alfred John
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Edmunds, J. E.


Barr, James
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Batey, Joseph
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Egan, W. H.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Cameron, A. G.
Elmley, Viscount


Bellamy, Albert
Cape, Thomas
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Foot, Isaac


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Charleton, H. C.
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Chater, Daniel
Freeman, Peter


Benson, G.
Church, Major A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Clarke, J. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Birkett, W. Norman
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)


Blindell, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Glassey, A. E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Compton, Joseph
Gosling, Harry


Gossling, A. G.
McElwee, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gould, F.
McEntee, V. L.
Sherwood, G. H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.
Shield, George William


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McKinlay, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Granville, E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Shillaker, J. F.


Gray, Milner
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shinwell, E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
McShane, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mansfield, W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marcus, M.
Sinkinson, George


Grundy, Thomas W.
Markham, S. F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Marley, J.
Skelton, A. N.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mathers, George
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Maxton, James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Melville, J. B.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Harbord, A.
Messer, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hardie, George D.
Middleton, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Harris, Percy A.
Mills, J. E.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sorensen, R.


Haycock, A. W.
Morley, Ralph
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Stephen, Campbell


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mort, D. L.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Moses, J. J. H.
Strauss, G. R.


Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sullivan, J.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sutton, J. E.


Hoffman, P. C.
Muff, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hollins, A.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Hopkin, Daniel
Murnin, Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nathan, Major H. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Horrabin, J. F.
Naylor, T. E.
Tillett, Ben


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Noel Baker, P. J.
Toole, Joseph


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tout, W. J.


Isaacs, George
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, Wilfrid
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.
Turner, B.


Johnston, Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Vaughan, D. J.


Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)
Perry, S. F.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Walker, J.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallace, H. w.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Picton-Tubervill, Edith
Watkins, F. C.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pole, Major D. G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Kennedy, Thomas
Price, M. P.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pybus, Percy John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Knight, Holford
Quibell, D. J. K.
West, F. R.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Westwood, Joseph


Lang, Gordon
Rathbone, Eleanor
White, H. G.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lathan, G.
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawrence, Susan
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees).
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lawson, John James
Romeril, H. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Leach, W.
Rothschild, J. de
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rowson, Guy
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lees, J.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wise, E. F.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.



Lunn, William
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sexton, James
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Henderson.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 11th November.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.